Ling's profileMountain ViewPhotosBlogListsMore Tools Help

Blog


    February 09

    Letter from Peter (3)

    Dear Zhang Ling, 
     
        ......
    Actually, I did write one long article about the Tibet issue, which might be of interest to you (although I'm sure it couldn't be published in the PRC).  Unfortunately I don't have a file, but you can find it on-line. The story is called "Tibet Through Chinese Eyes" and it was published in the Atlantic Monthly in February of 1999. This was very early in my writing
    career ­ actually, it was my first significant publication.  After finishing my job in Fuling, and leaving the Peace Corps, I traveled to Tibet before returning to America.  I spent a month there and researched this story for the Atlantic.  It's not particularly well-written and the pieces that I subsequently wrote for the New Yorker are much better, as far as the writing goes.  But this story was well researched and I believe the ideas are still solid.  At that time, (and even nowadays) there were basically no foreign journalists who tried to examine the issue from the Chinese point of view.
    That was my goal; I felt like Americans should have an idea why Tibet means so much to China.

         Of course, this is an awful issue.  No matter what you write, somebody is going to be furious, and this article probably wasn't satisfying to either side.  But it particularly infuriated the pro-Tibet lobby in the US. There were critical letters and when I appeared on a radio show people called in to attack me.  I was very young; my first book had not yet been published, and the experience was very traumatic.  There was a period when I wished that I had not touched the subject.  But as time passes, I'm somewhat proud of the story, because I tried to look at this topic from a different point of view.  Whether or not I was successful, it was a good project.

         Certainly, it left me with a lasting dislike of the pro-Tibet lobby in the States.  These are people who simply want to feel good about themselves. Also, if they spent any time trying to understand the issue, they would realize that the reason the Chinese care about Tibet is tied up with the disintegration of the country in the 19th and 20th centuries.  People in China are traumatized by the sense that foreigners want to divide their land.  So when an American criticizes the Chinese presence in Tibet, he is doing exactly what the Chinese hate the most, and it will only make the Chinese more stubborn.  This is why the US has never played a productive role in this issue.  One thing that I particularly hate is when they lie about the facts.  The Chinese government does this, but it doesn't mean that the pro-Tibet lobby should do the same.  For example, they often claim that the Chinese are in Tibet to profit from the resources.  Tibet is a very poor area and the Chinese will never profit from it; economically, it's a loser for the country.  (This is different from Xinjiang, which has more accessible resources.)  And it gives the Americans a false sense that it's a simple issue.  If the Chinese were in Tibet for economic reasons, then somebody could give them a bunch of money and they'd be happy to leave.  But the Chinese would never do that.  It's not an economic issue, fundamentally.

         My politics on Tibet, like the Xinjiang issue, are somewhat complicated.  During my book tour for Oracle Bones, this issue came up and I said that Tibet and Xinjiang would never be independent.  A pro-Tibet woman in the audience became very angry.  But I explained that I'm only being realistic ­ these places have been part of China for a long time now, and the political and economic reality is entrenched.  And there is no way that another country can force China to give these places up.  Certainly, from a cultural point of view, and from many different historical perspectives, these are places that can make a very good case for independence.  But moral rightness is not as important as the practical reality.  The Dalai Lama's big mistake was that for years he made the moral case without doing the pragmatic work, ie learning to deal with the Chinese.  Now he has shifted but the Chinese have no more patience with him.

         Obviously, the Chinese should adjust their policies. I think they should limit the migration of Han Chinese, and they should be more sensitive about religious issues in both places.  It's very striking when you visit and realize that virtually no Han Chinese speak the local language.  It's similar to visiting the American embassy in Iraq, which has almost no Arabic speakers.  How can you treat people well if you don't speak their language?

         In the end, I found this issue sad from both sides.  Most of the Chinese I met in Tibet didn't really want to be there.  And at some level the Chinese have become victims of their own propaganda.  During the Qing, they wanted Tibet to be part of China strictly for practical and military reasons.  They didn't want Tibet to be chaotic, causing trouble on the borders, so they maintained a military presence.  But they did not encourage migration and they accepted the fact that Tibetan culture was quite different from Chinese.  By the end of the 20th century, though, the reasons for Tibet had become more ideological than practical.  The Chinese connected it with the Opium War and the Taiwan issue and Xinjiang and the Japanese in Dongbei and all the other bad things that happened from foreigners.  In fact each is a separate issue and deserves to be viewed on its own terms.  But the Chinese government developed an over-simplified worldview that linked all of these issues.  As a result they've been less effective in places like Tibet and Xinjiang than if they had taken a clearer view of the culture and the history.

         I haven't written about Tibet since, largely because as a journalist I can't go there without approval.  I was able to spend a month there after the Peace Corps because nobody knew I was a writer.  But now I'm accredited and I would have to apply with the Foreign Ministry, and people would follow me around.  I don't want to deal with it.  And I have good friends there and don't want to cause them trouble.
     
        ......

        All the best ­

    Pete
    February 08

    Letter from Peter--About his new book "Oracle Bones" (2)

       
    Yes, I reviewed that very useful Cultural Revolution website when
    researching the book.  Some of the details didn't quite match with what I
    heard later from others -- although the story was never quite the same
    twice.  There was confusion about how many suicide attempts, and exactly how
    it happened; I've read a number of Chinese reports that say that Zhao Luorui
    was there when Chen killed himself.  But I'm quite certain she was not and
    that Chen was being watched by the younger scholars from the kaoguxue
    (including Old Yang who I interviewed).
         Polat has a very dark view of the world, much darker than I would ever
    have.  But I think it's quite different for somebody from an ethnic group
    like the Uighurs.  They've really never had any place in the world, any
    control over their fate.  When you think about how much the Chinese were
    traumatized by the Opium War, it's minor in comparison -- Chinese have had
    some degree of control over their government, language, history, religion,
    etc for most of the past.  And Americans were horribly traumatized by 9/11,
    responding in very stupid ways from which they are only now starting to
    recover their senses -- and that is really a very minor event compared to
    what other cultures have experience.  And groups like the Uighurs have never
    had any sort of moment at all.  They began to gain national consciousness
    during the early 20th century, and by then it was too late.  It only makes
    them bitter.
         I suspect that people like that are susceptible to all sorts of radical
    ideas.  Polat was not like that; he is not a violent person and he is
    actually quite honest, despite his twisted path.  But he'll always feel
    resentment for the Chinese.  I don't think it's right, but it's important to
    understand why that feeling is there.
         It's similar to the Chinese in Tibet.  Americans always try to take a
    logical approach to that issue, explaining that the Chinese don't have a
    strong historical claim, and they don't need Tibet, etc etc.  Same with
    Taiwan.  But that's really not the issue.  It's important to understand why
    the Chinese have grown to care about these places, and what these places
    mean to the Chinese.  The logic isn't as important as the emotional reasons.
    If history treats people in unexpected and illogical ways, then they will
    probably respond in turn.  The day 9/11 happened, I was certain that the
    U.S. would respond with some kind of massive mistake.  I didn't have faith
    in the country's international sense, but I also believed that traumatized
    countries tend to behave badly.
         I'll try to attach some articles here --
    
    Pete
           

    Letter from Peter --about "Oracle Bones"(1)

    Dear Zhang Ling ­

       Thanks for the note.  I received the Duku books and I have been trying to send the editor some files of articles and stories, but the Internet connection is so bad that it is a problem.  All of my notes have been sent back.  I suppose you probably heard that there was an earthquake in Taiwan and that the cables are down.  They still haven't fixed it very annoying. I'll keep trying.  Do you want me to send the files to you as well?

        I'm glad to hear that you were interested in Chen Mengjia's story.  To be honest, one of my main reasons for writing about him was because I figured that some Chinese would read the story and become interested.  I only scraped the surface; my book describes a certain search for Chen Mengjia, but there is a real need for a more thorough book, researched by a Chinese person.  And I've always hoped that somebody would do this before the older people pass on.

        I have heard a lot about Li Xueqin's reputation, which was the reason I approached him in the way I did. Actually, a number of foreign reviewers criticized me for the way I interviewed him and wrote about him. Jonathan Spence, the Yale historian, gave my book a very positive review in the New York Times, but he didn't like the part about Li Xueqin ­ he described it as "moralistic posturing." I don't think that section is unfair, or particularly moralistic; I am honest about the fact that I basically tricked Li Xueqin into that interview.  I didn't tell him what I was really interested in (Chen's story), and in some ways that's not fair.  If anything, the section reflects a certain amoralism that is not uncommon in China today.  Each of the main characters ­ Polat, Willy, Emily, even me ­at some point does something that is illegal or wrong. It has a lot to do with the current environment, I believe, and each person needs to be understood within that context.  The section on Li Xueqin ends with the sense that I can't really understand him, or judge him, because I won't ever
    have that context ­ I don't really know what happened during the 50's and 60's.
     
          ......

           At any rate, I'm currently working hard on the next book, which is different from the first two. Together they will be a set of three books that cover the decade from '96 (when I arrived in Fuling) to '06. Each has its own approach and range of interest.  River Town is concerned with geography, and Oracle Bones looks at history. The new book will look at
    economics.  But each of these topics is viewed through individual stories, not the big-picture stuff that we often see about China.
     
         .....

        All the best ­

    Peter