Norms of Civilized Behaviour
The convenor of a recent New York seminar on Tibetan studies decided that Tibetan observers had no business to be there, the idea being to keep the conference “non-political.” This probably means she feared Tibetans would start shouting slogans and throwing rotten tomatoes as soon as the Chinese delegates appeared on the stage. It was the Chinese gentleman’s second conference of this nature and I believe on both occasions the Tibetans who were present behaved themselves very properly. However, it is possible the convenor’s anthropoligical work has revealed that Tibetans who have not formed the habit of delivering papers at scholarly gatherings are still at the primitive stage of their evolution and hence given to unprovoked barbarian acts without advance notice.
Although our special correspondent did not manage to send much details about the episode, many participants to the seminar in the meantime have filled us in. For instance, we know that the local Tibetans threw a party for all the delegates on the last night of the conference. Everyone turned up including the Chinese delegate and his lady companion who, incidentally, could only be described as an “observer” since she did not deliver any papers. (She could, however, have been the official photographer as she was seen busily clicking away with her camera at everyone who spoke.) The convenor, possibly to keep away from a violent fracas, did not care to attend the party. She must have been rather disappointed to learn afterwards that the two unprotected Chinese were not molested or abducted or gang-raped or sacrificed before a photograph of the Dalai Lama or anything of the kind.
Anyway, one fails to see the logic behind the need to keep away any “serious” discussion on Tibet “non-political.” If an endless argument was feared, those present could have been warned beforehand that the question time must not be abused with matters not directly pertaining to the papers read; in which event any observer who persisted in doing so could, with approval from all, be show the exit.
If political question did turn up in connection with the papers presented, what was the harm in answering them? Why was it assumed that other participants would not be interested? After all, the purpose of forming the International Association for Tibetan Studies must have been attempt a deeper understanding of all aspects of Tibet—not just its arts, culture religion and non-political part of history.
One cannot help getting the impression that the real reason for the exclusion of Tibetan observers from the seminar was political. If bending over backwards to please Peking—which was what she appeared to be doing as far as many other participants were concerned—is not politics, what is it then? Think about it along with other facts, such as that the Chinese delegate stayed at her residence in New York before and after the conference. Also, earlier in the year she was able to get a trip to China (where she may have been given a few pointers on how to run a good seminar). What is she aiming at now? Does a trip to Tibet sound too uninspired a guess? Or perhaps, having spent so many years studying barbarians Tibetans, she finds her increasing contact with the civilized Chinese a refreshing change. If that is the case, all we can say is good luck to her.
The convenor of a recent New York seminar on Tibetan studies decided that Tibetan observers had no business to be there, the idea being to keep the conference “non-political.” This probably means she feared Tibetans would start shouting slogans and throwing rotten tomatoes as soon as the Chinese delegates appeared on the stage. It was the Chinese gentleman’s second conference of this nature and I believe on both occasions the Tibetans who were present behaved themselves very properly. However, it is possible the convenor’s anthropoligical work has revealed that Tibetans who have not formed the habit of delivering papers at scholarly gatherings are still at the primitive stage of their evolution and hence given to unprovoked barbarian acts without advance notice.
Although our special correspondent did not manage to send much details about the episode, many participants to the seminar in the meantime have filled us in. For instance, we know that the local Tibetans threw a party for all the delegates on the last night of the conference. Everyone turned up including the Chinese delegate and his lady companion who, incidentally, could only be described as an “observer” since she did not deliver any papers. (She could, however, have been the official photographer as she was seen busily clicking away with her camera at everyone who spoke.) The convenor, possibly to keep away from a violent fracas, did not care to attend the party. She must have been rather disappointed to learn afterwards that the two unprotected Chinese were not molested or abducted or gang-raped or sacrificed before a photograph of the Dalai Lama or anything of the kind.
Anyway, one fails to see the logic behind the need to keep away any “serious” discussion on Tibet “non-political.” If an endless argument was feared, those present could have been warned beforehand that the question time must not be abused with matters not directly pertaining to the papers read; in which event any observer who persisted in doing so could, with approval from all, be show the exit.
If political question did turn up in connection with the papers presented, what was the harm in answering them? Why was it assumed that other participants would not be interested? After all, the purpose of forming the International Association for Tibetan Studies must have been attempt a deeper understanding of all aspects of Tibet—not just its arts, culture religion and non-political part of history.
One cannot help getting the impression that the real reason for the exclusion of Tibetan observers from the seminar was political. If bending over backwards to please Peking—which was what she appeared to be doing as far as many other participants were concerned—is not politics, what is it then? Think about it along with other facts, such as that the Chinese delegate stayed at her residence in New York before and after the conference. Also, earlier in the year she was able to get a trip to China (where she may have been given a few pointers on how to run a good seminar). What is she aiming at now? Does a trip to Tibet sound too uninspired a guess? Or perhaps, having spent so many years studying barbarians Tibetans, she finds her increasing contact with the civilized Chinese a refreshing change. If that is the case, all we can say is good luck to her.
posted by editorla at
9:21 PM
<< Home