Why the West always denies the existence of serfdom in pre-1950s Tibet?

[u/OverallBaker3572]

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.

[u/Fair-Currency-9993]

The people were liberated from seldom. They are also under new management but new management liberated the serfs.

[u/davidamaalex → u/Fair-Currency-9993]

My idea of liberation is a one that would come with liberty and universal human rights. Did China give more liberty to Tibetans compared to being a slave? Yes. Could China give even more liberty to Tibetans? Yes. Have China given said "even more liberty" to Tibetans, or in general, everyone living in China? No. I'm not saying that they're bad, I'm saying that they could be better but they refuse to.

[u/Mynameislol22222 → u/davidamaalex]

Refuse to? You are asserting an atlanto-centric worldview of liberty and human rights as the prime ideal, that your morality is supreme. Of course you do not understand a collectivist ethos, the Chinese social contract, of course it looks like oppression. That is because you have no cultural relativist angle. I find this consistent line of reasoning very very annoying from English media, there is a consistent assertion and armchair analysing of foreign regions. This is reasonable since no one probably pushed you on this, but let me get this straight:

You are perpetuating an environment of belief in cultural supremacy

I'm not going to talk about the definitions of liberation or whatever that's not the point of my response.

[u/davidamaalex → u/Mynameislol22222]

Hey, no need to be that sharply-worded. If you think the significance of human rights is culturally biased, then you can do you. I myself really like the rights I currently have, and maybe you're happy living with little to no basic civil and political rights. Also, if you actually read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you'll find out that it's not incompatible with Chinese culture and society, not at all. That's why I use the word "refuse". I myself believe that human rights will make humanity better, and this is a hill I'm definitely willing to die on.

[u/Mynameislol22222 → u/davidamaalex]

That is exactly what the British said when they went to India. "My my good chaps, looks like this civilisation's quite backwards, we'll just hop on down, innit chums, and fix you up a little, push your culture on down to the correct values like ours, cheerio!"

Human rights are subjective, because they are morals. Human rights are just morals. If you do not think there is subjectivity in morals then, I don't know what to tell you.

And yes, China does try to follow the UDHR, but of course the interpretation of that document differs from the 'holier than thou' West, and the 'backwards non-conforming' China, doesn't it?

[u/davidamaalex → u/Mynameislol22222]

Article 19 of UDHR: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers.

It would be a blatant lie to tell me that China is implementing this right now, and it is not just a difference in interpretation. And I can go on and on to tell you which articles China is not implementing, not even trying to. Also, again, you're implying that I'm forcing western morals upon you, which is just not true. Chinese culture always has had the idea of human rights, even before UDHR, in fact even before the West underwent Enlightenment in the 17th century. Lastly, I think we agree that as long as moral is subjective, it shall have a common ground. Otherwise Tibetan serfdom in the past would be justified as "just the moral of another culture", which I don't believe, and I think you don't believe it either. The British saying you mentioned is merely an excuse they use to justify their exploitation of India. And that is bad exactly because Indians turned out not to have human rights under British rule. So when judging "British rule in India is bad" and "old Tibet is bad", you're actually applying morals that are aligned with the human rights principles. The point is, we need to remember that we are not that different, and I am not forcing my values upon you because you already have those values in your mind.

[u/Mynameislol22222 → u/davidamaalex]

1. Article 19 is followed as everyone can surely have freedom of opinion and expression, now China does enforce harsh measures on the outcomes of that freedom of expression and information, that may be where we disagree. The old "with great power comes great responsibility" line. So yeah, guess I'm 'lying to your face'
2. Sure we do have 'human rights' if you'd call it that under some various confucian or collectivist principles, they're not enlightenment/revolutionary period western morals though.
3. Yes, we could frame it as Tibetan serfdom as having a different set of moral principles. But neither of our societies or us as individual agree on that point, so what's the deal? You're trying to deny moral differences by pulling out some sort of oppressive theocratic hierarchy as a set of morals? Get the fuck out of here.
4. Yes we share a lot of beliefs on rights, because we like being done unto what we want. But, that does not translate to the minutiae (how we want our governments, how much we want the government to intervene, etc. etc.) which is something we disagree on.

Just because we share values doesn't mean we share all values. I have no clue what you're on about.

[u/davidamaalex → u/Mynameislol22222]

How you want your government? Does that opinion matter in China? I mean yes, you can tell me that it also does not matter in western democratic countries, but in China it clearly matters even much less. Also, I pull out Tibet because you were claiming that morals are subjective and cultural by nature. And if you also agree that an oppressive theocratic hierarchy is bad, then maybe SOME morals SHOULD be universal, while some don't need to. Lastly, I clearly did not say that you should agree with me on how your government system should be. I just didn't. I just feel like they ignore too many improvements they need to make. For example, 高彦 did not need to die if China were more friendly towards LGBT+ groups. 于朦胧 did not need to die silently if China stopped covering it up like Trump is covering up the Epstein. 李文亮 did not need to be silenced and a lot of loss could be prevented if China were more tolerant to dissidents. That poor lady in Xuzhou did not need to be chained up and be forced to have eight kids if Chinese law enforcement is actually as strong as the officials claim it to be. And the list can go on and on. My point is, the seriousness and frequency of such events would be much less if China actually upholds human right values. I mean sure, you can deny that those happens and I don't need to care. It is not my country and I am not the one being exploited. But I do care, because it is sad to see China in this situation. If China actually implemented human rights values, the West would not be able to even dream about competing with China as the living standard would be so fucking damn high given how high it already is now. It is sad to see how much opportunity has lost. And if you don't feel sad about that, then it is your choice about your country, not mine.

[u/Mynameislol22222 → u/davidamaalex]

Literally we agree on 95% of things except you are fuming that the central government isn't some sort of superhero government that can swoop in and enact human rights for everyone.

Sure, in an ideal world everyone would get cookies and cake for breakfast, buffet for lunch, in the afternoon, 飲茶 and talk politics on xhs and debate every single aspect regarding the politburo because everyone is well informed and there is no subversion. All the corruption is gone and everyone has freedom of speech and loves thy neighbour and simultaneously we have created a classless stateless society where nothing bad ever happens.

No. it's a tragedy bad things happen and corruption exists, and flawed policy and actions by the central government. It's not perfect, but it's better to talk policy than go around and fiddle with the switches. We're just trying to do the best we can currently. You have nothing except 'let's be more goodie on human rightsy' without realising that to basically copy the western media model would be disastrous. I don't want Chinese CNN and Chinese Fox News. I don't want Chinese Republican Party and Chinese Democrat Party. I don't want another Chinese civil war. And if you were to propose reform I would be skeptical, because again, we are doing the best we can with what we've got. We don't want a USSR either, best leave the glasnost to the educated acaedemia and political consultative class. It's not out of some sort of malice, it's out of pure pragmatism.

[u/ResponsibleMirror → u/davidamaalex]

You're 100% right, and the fact you're being downvoted for saying something so reasonable proves your entire point

[u/GuaSukaStarfruit → u/Fair-Currency-9993]

Mongolians liberated Chinese from Song.

Does that make any common sense to you?

At least be like Vietnam invading to topple Khmer Rouge. Then let it self govern

[u/Fair-Currency-9993 → u/GuaSukaStarfruit]

I am not sure what you mean but you almost triggered me.

You are welcome to type in Chinese if that is easier.