“Black Annals: Goldstein and the negation of Tibetan history”
http://www.jamyangnorbu.com/blog/2008/07/19/black-annals-goldstein-the-negation-of-tibetan-history-part-i-tris/

———-
Many of the CIA funded propagandists are telling so much lies that even the Dalai Lama couldn’t catch up with them.

thank you very much for your extrordinary great article. rangzen werner – helsinki

I am a leftist myself; I am exteremely liberal on social issues and economically socialist. I subscribe to Marx’s critique of capitalism and see the need for an egalitarian society based on socialist ideas. However I do not see how any well-educated invidivual with any sense of morality and a proper political training can justify oppression. And I support a Free Tibet.

As a socialist who supports a Free Tibet, I urge you not to paint all of the “left” with the same brush, but rather isolate the problem – Stalinists – from the picture.

Yet, Schrei never mentions Goldstein. Why?

Schrei wrote, “In his descriptions of old Tibet, Parenti predominantly draws on the work of four historians — Anna Louise Strong, A. Tom Grunfeld, and Roma and Stuart Gelder.”

Take a look at Parenti’s piece, and Schrei’s criticism quickly falls apart. Parenti actually predominantly cites Goldstein – 7 times. He cites the Gelders 7 times, Strong 5 times, and Grunfeld 2 times.

Yet Schrei reverses this emphasis, and mentions Grunfeld 26 times, Strong 16 times, Gelders 4 times, and does not mention Goldstein at all.

Why?

Because Goldstein doesn’t fit the picture Schrei tries to paint of the “ideologically-driven Parenti”. Goldstein’s scholarly findings support all of Parenti’s assertions about the feudal and unequal nature of traditional Tibetan society.

See for example “The Circulation of Estates in Tibet: Reincarnation, Land and Politics”
http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/Circulation.pdf discusses the competition and “sinister machinations” among the powerful monks and the leading aristocratic families for “significant wealth”, which meant “land and serfs to work the land.” Although there were about 300 aristocratic families, 6 families dominated, with about 25 families controlling the majority of land not held by the monasteries or government.

Schrei’s piece is typical of the “Lies (and the Lying Liars who tell them)” approach to political writing. Once you look closely at their assertions using “fact-based reality” it all falls apart.

There are multiple examples of this.

http://www.swans.com/library/art9/letter27.html

Josh’s letter at Swans attacks Parenti and is signed,

“Joshua Schrei
Board of Directors
Students for a Free Tibet
Brooklyn, NY, USA – July 22, 2003″

“Michael Parenti responds:

To the Editor:

In his passion for old feudal Tibet, Schrei repeatedly resorts to misrepresentations and slurs.

I never said the situation in Tibet was “so rosy” after the overthrow of the feudal system, and even pointed to abuses by the Chinese.

Schrei writes that my “use of state-controlled information as a prime source calls into question not only the credibility of the article but also Parenti’s credibility as a historian.” But throughout my article I used Western sources almost exclusively, and I also used reports by the Free Tibet people regarding Chinese mistreatment of Tibetans. Schrei’s misrepresentation of my sources calls into question his credibility as a critic.
…..
All the letters that have come to Swans complaining about my article on Tibet, including Schrei’s, have four things in common:

(1) They give proof that the romanticized belief in Shangri-La is alive and well.

(2) They never explain the immense accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few lords and lamas in old Tibet, an otherwise simple and poor agricultural land.

(3) They accuse me of supporting the Chinese occupation of Tibet when in fact what I do is criticize the earlier feudal theocratic rule — while actually offering criticisms of the Chinese occupation.

(4) They have not a word to say about the active alliance of the Tibetan ruling class with international reactionary elements including the CIA.

Michael Parenti
Oakland, California, USA – July 23, 2003

[Ed. Note: Three other letters regarding Michael Parenti's article were published in the July 21 issue of Swans. Mr. Schrei refers to one of these letters, that of Nima Dorjee, in his last paragraph. Mr. Schrei should note that this letter had to be edited for some of its deeply demeaning content, though the unedited version was forwarded to Michael Parenti. Ad hominem attacks on someone's character tend to weaken one's argumentation, not strengthen it!] ”
******************

Schrei’s essay here contains many of the same half-truths, exaggerations and omissions that Parenti characterized in his response. A close reading of Parenti at http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html against Schrei’s piece will quickly reveal where they are.

What about the use of the name “Joshua Michael Schrei”? Is this the same person as Josh Schrei? A quick google search shows thousands of references to “Josh Schrei” who has been associated with the Free Tibet movement for decades.

For “Josh Michael Schrei” to refer to himself in the first sentence of this piece “As a lifelong activist who has worked on human rights issues around the globe” but for “Josh Schrei” to refer to himself elsewhere as “Producer, Tibetan Freedom Concerts. Former Chair, Students for a Free Tibet” strikes me as somewhat misleading.

Is the use of “Joshua Michael Schrei” (this name only appears in Google in reference to this article) your choice or his choice? I’m just trying to determine whether this is a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the source of this article.

Are you the same Josh Schrei who was a Board Member of Students for a Free Tibet? If so, don’t you think it is misleading for you not to inform the readers here?

http://21stcenturysocialism.com/article/the_unusual_suspect_01635.html

http://www.amazon.com/Struggle-Modern-Tibet-Autobiography-Tsering/dp/1563249502

The issue of what i have with the author in this article is this. He is accusing the “left” do not support their account by Tibetans while not much of his accounts are supported by common Tibetans.

So, to the left I say! As far as possible!

Cf. G. P. Malalasekera & K. N. Jayatilleke, Buddhism and the Race Question (Paris: UNESCO Publications, 1958)
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/dharmadata/fdd53.htm
“Despite this, various forms of the caste system are practised in several Buddhist countries, mainly in Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Japan where butchers, leather and metal workers and janitors are sometimes regarded as being impure.”
Is the author aware of CIA meddling to internal affairs of China and Tibet?
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/vol_xxx/337_343.html

Are these all the communist propaganda as well?
and why the right wing historians are assumed to be better and unbiased compared to the left wing historians?
Isn’t it just a prejudice of the author against the left supporters?

His opening argument stated that the Tibet issue by in large has nothing to do with European imperialism, and fast forwarded the time line straight to 1949, when communist China retook Tibet from its “quasi-independence” and incorporated it into the new China. The author continently forgot about the British invasion of Tibet in 1888 and 1904, which the British in its failed efforts to annex Tibet from the Qing government to become a part of its sphere of influence was well documented.

The author made his second main point by asserting that Tibet was never a part of China stemming from the fact that during the Yuan dynasty, the Mongols were the predominant force in consolidating China and as the rightful ruler of the Chinese empire, had little to do with the Han majority that is the main Chinese population today. This view, my friends, is self contradictory to say the least, and with a little racial overtone that questions the validity and the definition of “Chinese”. Can anyone name me one country today that is homogeneous in terms of its population? The answer is no! All countries in the world today are comprised of diversified population, and China is no different. In essence, who are the Chinese? Are only the Han considered Chinese? The term has been used loosely and interchangeably for decades. China has 56 ethnic groups that make up the Chinese population. To say that one group of ethnic Chinese is not considered part of China is ludicrous. It’s kind of saying that the Native Americans are not Americans! It was clearly written in the history books and recognized internationally that Yuan was one of the Chinese dynasties in Chinese history! Not a Mongol dynasty, but a Chinese dynasty administered by the Mongols!

The author also went on to discredit Michael Parenti, citing his work was based on a biased historical point of view on Tibet. I would have to agree with the author on that any society, especially an ancient Tibetan civilization, was complex in that its population should not be categorized by simple terms. However, one must ask the question that however diverse the population, what was the degree of social mobility to which governed Tibet in creating sustainable living for the masses? While there were various social and professional groups, as pointed out by the author in Tibet prior to 1959, the social-economic and political influence, however, as agreed by many were in the hands of the few privileged nobles, monks, and government officials. The Tibetan population was and still is an ultra religious, worshiping the Dalai Lama among other Buddhist leaders. This sense of deep devotion to its leaders and the religion has reached a fanatical level in creating a theocratic regime with absolute power, and at times ruthless in dealing with its own population. To say that Tibetans embrace democracy and respect human rights is up for debate, and that the government-in-exile is the savor of its people from communist China is somewhat of a stretch in their imagination.

The Dalai Lama is a religious leader and a politician. Differences in that unlike your average politician, many Tibetans revere the Dalai Lama and he could do no wrong since he is the reincarnation of Buddha. In that sense, Tibetan Buddhism is no better or more enlightened in comparing with other major religions in the world. When you do not have separation of religion and the state, the idea of democracy does not exist and is in itself a fallacy in argument.

The author proclaimed his understanding of the Tibet issue through the lenses of Tibet’s contemporary populous both inside and outside of China. His interactions with the native Tibetans, however frequent, may not represent the overall true nature of Tibetan’s desire for autonomy. The author questioned the fact thousands of Tibetans fled Tibet over the years, but offered little explanation. Were they in search of a better life in a foreign land, or to be closer to their spiritual leader? Or perhaps both? What is the average yearly income of Tibetans in China as suppose to Tibetans in India? What government institutional programs are in place to assist the Tibetans? These are just some of the questions to which the author offered little explanation.

i have not been able to post here,
this is a trial post

the usual usspects, from cuba to kosovo, to tibet

One book that puts a big wrinkle in Josh’s perspective is “Struggle
for Modern Tibet” by Tashi Tsering. He’s not a Marxist nor a Chinese
apologist. He was killed after repeated arrests for raising the Tibetan
flag in Lhasa. He knew the Dalai Lama real good. They were very close.

He considered the Chinese effort to end feudalism in Tibet as an
important and necessary process that brought an end to much suffering
of the people. He then hoped that the Chinese would withdraw and
allow Tibet to become independent. The book gives a precise description
of what Tibet was like under the Lamaist theocracy. It certainly
disputes many of the basic premises Josh Schrei uses in this article.

Pretty incredible book! And it does speak to the smell of out could be going on in Tibet.