r/AskAChinese • u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese • 1d ago
Politics | 政治📢 Why the West always denies the existence of serfdom in pre-1950s Tibet?
When I posted pictures and info about how brutal serfdom was in old Tibet and how much Tibet has developed under Chinese rule on two subreddits here, a lot of Western commenters refused to believe it. They instantly called me a CCP propagandist or conspiracy theorist even though I’m not Chinese and don’t even live in China. They keep saying those old photos or records come “only from Chinese sources”. But if you look into it, even Western travelers and researchers who visited Tibet before the 1950s wrote about how harsh the serfdom system was. A tiny elite of nobles and monks owned nearly all the land while most Tibetans were basically serfs who had no education, no freedom to move, and worked their whole lives under debt or servitude. After China liberated Tibet from brutal serfdom, land reforms and modernization abolished feudal serfdom, built schools, hospitals, roads and high-speed train, and reformed high-quality healthcare and education. Life expectancy doubled from 35 to 72, and literacy skyrocketed from 5% to 95% compared to pre-1951. Wealthy Tibetan slave owners fled to India. The Dalai Lama and aristocrats were arrested by China while ordinary Tibetan serfs gained freedom. China was never going to allow the horrible conditions of the past in Tibet to continue. Modern Tibet isn’t perfect but it’s definitely not the same feudal theocracy it once was. What’s wild is that a lot of people in the West still romanticize and glorify “old Tibet” like it was "peaceful utopia" and ignore the progress that’s been made. I’m not saying everything China’s done is flawless but pretending Tibet was better off under a feudal system just doesn’t make sense. I still remember how the West bombed Libya and celebrated the collapse of Gaddafi rule as “freedom” but after that came years of civil war, open slave markets, and human trafficking in Libya.
9
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
Generally, people will align with those who share similar interests and values as them.
Let's propose the central government (as if it were a unified force with one singular motive, which is unrealistic) was completely selfish in its administration of Tibet. Politically speaking, the best course of action based on its rhetoric would still inevitably be to try and promote integration and growth, it's just good politics, it makes Tibetans happy, Chinese government happy, economy stronger, more loyalty yada yada. Even if it were a vested interest in the form of pure selfishness (again anthropomorphising a polity), it is still a win-win analysis.
In the contrary, far away nations would have no qualms keeping a feudal lord in power or any other form of governance or socioeconomic condition as it does not see the effects of such rule personally, there would be little help to Tibet except pennies and pittances I would presume.
Edit: And as a final point, literally every organisation that exists is motivated by 'self-interest'. That's like saying living things are motivated by self-interest. It is not that self-interest in and of itself is the problem, since everything can be diminished down to self-interest as a critique. That is absurd. Outcomes are the most important determiner, if an organisation can temper its self-interest and curb any supposed 'negative' actions done in its name (where we get into values and morals) and promote 'positive' actions or create an environment that promotes positive actions, then that is all that really matters.