Jump to content

Talk:Serfdom in Tibet controversy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2


Section header

This article still needs editing and more information. Thanks for your input. Foxhunt99 (talk) 19:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I rather see this article completely rewritten or deleted altogether. The tone reveals that the author is out to make a point about the current status of Tibet, not illuminate the history of Tibet.--Amban (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The author mentioned no current status of Tibet at all. It is just some history that some people choose to forget. I am glad that it is here. It does needs a bit more editing, the tone is fine. Guox0032 (talk) 02:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

And who are you? A single edit account that is three days old if I were the judge.--Amban (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In order to be balanced, this article needs give a more complete picture of Tibetan society. For instance, the article fails to me mention the fact that Melvyn Goldstein shows that not all serfs were destitute, but could amass considerable wealth and even own their own land. Furthermore, in the book that Charles Bell points out that slavery in the Chumpi valley, were of a comparatively mild type. Finally, I do not think Anna Louise Strong can be quoted as a scholarly and neutral authority on Tibetan society. It is up to those who want to keep the article to improve it, I will propose its deletion if nothing happens.--Amban (talk) 14:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On what page did Goldstein say that, I will look into it. Anna Louise Strong's report is well known in Tibet history studies. Guox0032 (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

On page 5 in Goldstein's History of Modern Tibet. Also read his article from 1971.--Amban (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if the section header still adequately reflects the discussion below, which has moved on. For instance that unfree labour existed is established, not an "Accusation". Also to summarise the debate as "The communists say X, the Free Tibet movement say Y", is to ignore the much more important scholarly work. Bertport proposed (he?) would do a restructure of the page to reflect this, which would be grand imho. I am quite willing to write (and propose here first) a rewrite of the section header in the meantime, but would like consensus.--Jomellon (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

torture

I know there are torture chambers used by slave owners (lamas), and there are pictures of those, I would like to see some of those. 98.240.20.14 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

There are pictures on the web, google it. 129.59.150.62 (talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

RV

If someone wants to do a RV, please give a reason, I don't think POV is a reason, how about why you think it is POV. Guox0032 (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute what?

I have some people who are trying to dispute this article. I like to make something clear first. The only purpose of this article is to show that slavery and serfdom existed in old Tibet, it is not about if Chinese government invaded Tibet to free them or enslave them or any other political ideas. It is meant to provide some evidences about this part of history which is not commonly known. Foxhunt99 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • It is meant to denigrate and demean the Tibetan people before the period of Chinese occupation. The article, its contents and all of its references are all in flagrant violation of NPOV and if all that material were removed, this article would be little more than a sentence long. There is no reason to have any of this information in a seperate article outside of Tibet except to use it as a platform to try to justify the Chinese invasion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I never tried to justify Chinese invasion. This is a history article, it shows part of history. Why are you so against this. You say all the references are all in flagrant violation of NPOV, but why? You need to give a reason, is any of the author who wrote the source books a proven liar? I don' think you can prove it. Many of the pro-Tibet source are from Tibet historian only, I tried to only use western historians, not Chinese historians as source, yet you claim it is a NPOV problem. If some people pointing out something you don't agree, then it is a good thing, if everyone agree with you, then why do we even need NPOV rule? Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
And please be reasonable, if you read the article carefully, it present 2 sides, one side saying serfs and slave were treated badly, the other saying serfs and slaves condition were not as bad as it seems. It is presented in both ways. If you really have some other concerns I will gladly to address them. Foxhunt99 (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • You can explain this edit, where you removed information that questions the view of China as liberators. As for the "western" sources you quoted, each of those people are known sympathizers of communist China and they are very likely to have opinions which closely align themselves with the communist Chinese government. Anna Louise Strong, who is quoted extensively in this article, campaigned vigorously on behalf of communist China during her life. Her writing on Tibet is therefore highly suspect and cannot be included here since it is not neutral.
This part was edit out, probably because it has nothing to do with serfdom. After 1960, many things happend, cultural evolution etc. Many areas of China suffered poverty and other human rights issues, not just Tibet. That quote was also from a Tibetan author was escaped from communist rule, as you stated, source from communist sympathizer are biased, but something from a Tibetan historian is not. This article has avoid citing many sources from Chinese historian, same should apply to Tibetan historian. Also Tomas Laird, Melvyn C. Goldstein are pro-Tibetan. You can't just pick and choose which source you like. Even some of the authors are communist sympathizers, that doesn't mean their word is any lesser reliable than a pro-Tibet historian. Anna Louise Strong may have only see the good side of communist party, but her interview with the locals provide some insight aspect of this part of history. Guox0032 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There are also more sides to this than the two you've trade to frame here. It isn't a question of saying "serfs were treated badly" and others saying "serfs aren't treated as poorly," but more of a question of whether there were serfs, to what extent where they use and by whom, comparisons with other feudal socities and historical context of Tibetan feudalism. Conditions of the serfdom are only a minor factor in all of that. Instead of going to those lengths, however, you've attempted to use this article to assail the government and people of Tibet as slaveowners and vicious feudal lords. This topic also does not need to have this article created, since you've said little beyond the bounds of what you wrote in Tibet. If I do not see improvement soon I'll nominate this article for deletion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There was a section based on Melvyn C. Goldstein's book, he argued how Tibet serfdom was different compare to European's. And he said Tibetan serfs sometimes were not bound by land, but I think either you or someone edit it out. I have to look for it again. And in this article, there is no mention tha Tibetan government were slave owners, in fact, did you read about one comment that slavery was mild in certain area? Guox0032 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I put the Melvyn C. Goldstein's section back, actually he claimed serfs can obtain certain degree of personal freedom. I don't know why you want to edit out something to suppor your view. Guox0032 (talk) 02:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • A couple of things: first if you're trying to make a case that you aren't a sockpuppet of Foxhunt99, it would be less obvious if you didn't respond to questions posed to that account after logging into the other. Secondly, the sources you mentioned had tags on them requesting verification and many of them had been altered or removed as being either unsupported or nonexistant by User:Amban. You or your sockpuppets reverted those edits and replaced the bad sources, so the only claims you have that are truly being supported here are those by Anna Louise Strong, whose bias is so great it may be discounted or disqualified under WP:FRINGE. Once again, if these concerns are not remedied (and I don't see how they could be), I will seek to have this article deleted or merged with Tibet. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
After reading some Tibetan articles in Wiki, and back track some of this one’s editing.

I fail to see your reasoning, Cumulus Clouds. It seems you are judging the quality of the sources based on your personal preference. You claim “so the only claims you have that are truly being supported here are those by Anna Louise Strong”, but that is not the case, after reading this article, there are obviously a lot more than just Anna Louise Strong. Melvyn Goldstien, Michael Parenti, Gelder, Charles Bell, Tomas Laird. Charles Bell was another westerner who traveled to Tibet himself, so did, Tomas Laird, Gelder, and Epstein. If you could claim Anna Louise Strong to be biased, then why not claim all pro-Tibetan sources to be biased too? Easymem (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Just for the record, checkuser requests will come up with all accounts related to the IP of the puppet master. Just because you've created a new user account after the request was put in doesn't mean it won't register. Your best bet is to remain logged in to one account until they decide whether to block you or not. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You must be desperate that no one share the same bias as you? Easymem (talk) 19:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You are getting nowhere Cumulus Clouds, last time I checked, you were being checked at one time too. Foxhunt99 (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Can't wait.Foxhunt99 (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

This article is irredeemably incoherent and should be deleted.--Amban (talk) 14:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any examples of incoherence. The topic is critical and has been the topic of scholarly sources. I don't understand your objections at this point and have removed the prod tag.--Gimme danger (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • This is a fringe article written by a single party to advance their own biased point of view. The sources are either unverified or highly biased, to the point of being outwardly unreliable. The original title of the article -Slavery in Tibet- should make the contents within it suspect, and even under a different name it still fails NPOV. It is unsalvageably unencyclopedic and should be removed. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Could you point out specific instances of bias or unreliable sources so that I could try to correct them? --Gimme danger (talk) 03:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Call to editors

I've put messages on both the Tibet and China WikiProject pages asking other editors to contribute to this article. If you've stopped by to contribute and see a specific task that needs completing, but don't have the time to do it yourself, please add it to the to-do list at the top of this page. Gimme danger (talk) 03:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

don't know how to use this to-do-list, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to add the Tibetan words for slave, serf etc. That is, unless we can be sure Tibetan feudal society was close enough to the feudal societies of Europe. Yaan (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

lamas

which class did they belong too? serfs or aristocratic land owners? Yaan (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2008

Lamas were usually "discovered" among the children of the land-owning classes, occasionally among the nomads (Dokpa) or serfs (Mi Ser). Certain offices are inherited inside one family, such as head of the Sakya tradition, which office is held by the Köhn family. After being discovered and trained by a monasteries elite, a lama was (usually) enthroned as the head of the monastery, and thus was a land-owner. Monasteries were often very keen the find their lama reincarnated in a rich family, as this family would then have obligations to the monastery.--Jomellon (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
A believer would say that Tulkus - lama reincarnations - found it more convenient to incarnate as the nephew or son of another lama or in the land owning class. Sceptics could regard the office of Lama with its privileges as being, like serfdom, inherited, and the system of "recognition" often not being driven by purely spiritual motivations. --Jomellon (talk) 13:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(UTC)

What about lamas that did not live in the monasteries? Yaan (talk) 15:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not a quiz, but it certainly could be mentioned in the article. From what one hears here and there, lamas were a considerable part of Tibet's pre-"liberation" population, so it certainly would be interesting to know how they fit into that "the main classes were the serfs and the aristocratic land owners" stuff.
Also that "taking away the children" stuff is interesting. In Mongolia, children also were (and are) given away if the parents have difficulties raising them, but usually to relatives or comrades, not to the slave owner next door. IIRC this happened to one of Sükhbaatar's siblings. Danzanravjaa was given to a monastery when his father was unable to feed him anymore. Choibalsan may be a similar story, but I don't know for sure.Tsedenbal's eulogy for Choibalsan held in 1945, published in 1951, translated in Urgunge Onon/Owen Lattimore, Mongolian Heroes of the Twentieth Century, New York 1976, says Choibalsan was sent to the monastery out of piety. Yaan (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
  • My point is that there is nothing to suggest the Tibetan Lamas were either. You're taking very literally the information in this article and treating as if it were factually accurate. It is not. That "main class were the serfs..." stuff is also highly inaccurate and there are no reliable sources to back up that information. Nothing within the section about child slavery has been verified either. So right now you don't need to worry about clarifying or expanding those sections because they are so poorly written and sourced. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Or maybe you are just not getting my point. Don't you think the status(es) of lamas shold at least be mentioned in an article like this? Yaan (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

It is important to maintain civility (WP:CIVIL) in all discussion. It is a necessity for writing good articles; which, in Wikipedia, is a group project. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Did you have something specific in the discussion above you were referring to? - Owlmonkey (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I understand that the subject of this article is close to the heart of some editors involved in writing the article. Because of that, it is for them easy for them to assume the bad faith editors who want to include material that seems contrary to their personal beliefs. In such situations there probably is no real solution; and the best that can be hoped for is that all editors will act fairly, and that all editors will maintain civility. There is no getting around the simple fact that editing Wikipedia is a group project, and that we must at least try to get along. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm quite familiar with the concept and ethos. I'm just curious if you were referring to anything in particular to my analysis above — or to something else earlier in the discussion — but in particular if you had a concern with my comments since you started this section just below my comments. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I am always at a loss at how to deal with an editor like Cumulus Clouds, who thinks that he/she has a right (responsibility?) to delete any material thought unworthy of the subject [1], or [2]. I could continue to try to explain how neutrality is achieved in an article by a variety of sources, but Cumulus Clouds does not seem interested, and I hate getting pulled into a situation where the choice seems to be between letting one editor control an article, or getting involve in an edit war. Any suggestions? In my view, in addition to civility problems, the editing of Cumulus Clouds amounts an effort to establish ownership of the article WP:OWN. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Well that doesn't strike me as a particularly civil thing for you to say. Your attempts at forum shopping for your POV aren't especially appreciated either. You've insisted on including a handful of obviously biased sources so you can push your agenda here and then you insist it's incumbent upon everyone else to provide countersources as a way to even out your POV. This is just as easily done by removing your POV entirely and eliminating any sources which give undue weight to a particularly biased field of view. This includes both Israel Epstein and Michael Parenti. You're not really interested in adhering to those guidelines, however, so you just readd the quotes from Epstein anytime they're removed and then come here and complain that I'm owning this article. If you expect some degree of civility from others, you should first demonstrate some degree of civility yourself. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I am trying to move the article toward more balance. You have consistently attacked, and removed, all sources that are contrary to your POV. I have made no attempt to remove any sources at all, and would encourage you to add even more that contradict Parenti, etc. If you have good sources that can show that Tibet before 1950 was a heaven on earth, please add them. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Without sources contradicting Epstein et al, we're simply left with silence on one side versus claims on the other. Generally when a theory is disputed there are sources refuting it. I could come up with sources that say the earth is flat, but it wouldn't take more than one page of a google search to find a preponderance of sources on the other side. If this is really a fringe theory as you claim, Cumulus, it will be trivial to come up with opposing sources. I'll see if I can pull anything up on the social situation pre-20th century from what I have laying around in scholarly books, but I won't be able to do any specific research until after finals. Gimme danger (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The whole claims vs. silence argument is exactly why this article needs to be deleted. There are no sources from opposing viewpoints because this is a POV being taken only by one side to further their agenda. Both of you keep insisting that it's everyone else's responsibility to find contradicting sources, but since there are none, this article fundamentally violates NPOV. If you yourselves can't find opposing sources to balance out your own POVs, the article needs to be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point, Clouds. You are the one who insists that one point of view is over-represented, so the burden is on you to present the point of view which you think is under-represented. You're trying to suppress the topic altogether, and you will not succeed. If the facts and published research support your point of view, then you have to do the homework to get them into the article. WP policy supports that. Bertport (talk) 04:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Israel Epstein

Is far as I know, membership in the Communist Party does not disqualify Israel Epstein as a good source. It would not be proper to use him as the only source, but since there are other sources (and still more can be added), there should be no difficulty in obtaining balance in the article...as long as editors refrain from edit wars in an effort to enforce their views as the only possible valid views. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm sure you would like to ignore his association with the communist party, but unfortunately this association put his report beyond the boundaries of a reliable source. He was very clearly trying to advance the agenda of the People's Republic. His comments are, therefore, about as useful as Goebbel's propaganda fliers in the Second World War. We don't use those as sources and we shouldn't use this. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
A controversial topic is not covered by excluding all non-neutral sources. We present the assertions of the various sources and identify their agendas. Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is a good model to follow for this article. Bertport (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Cumulus Clouds, all sources come with a POV, and having a POV is allowed (and assumed) for sources.... but not for Wikipedia articles (WP:NEU, WP:POV). Articles achieve neutrality by including sources with a variety of different views on the subject. So, if you think the article is not balanced, the solution is to include other sources, and not deleting the sources you personally do not like.
Also I want you to refrain from accusations, (such as, "I'm sure you would like to ignore his association with the communist party...") that I am editing in bad faith, because that is incivil and violates Wikipedis standards (WP:CIVIL). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There aren't any other sources available to present on this issue. So including a report from a member of the Chinese Communist party gives undue weight to those assertions without providing any alternative. Thus we have an article which is now, and probably always will be, biased towards the views of the communist Chinese. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You don't need to quote WP:CIVIL to me anymore, I'm familiar with the protocol and I know when I've violated it. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Did oppressive “feudal serfdom” exist in Tibet before the Chinese arrived?

For more details and discussion on this very controversial subject, please see the notes under this heading on the Talk:History of Tibet page. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 03:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

sources

I was asked to comment. Frankly, I agree with a good deal of Parenti's view of the situation,. But he's no more a reliable source than I am. There are I hope better sources for that point of view. They have to be published sources, not someone blog. DGG (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC) ::see correction below

Michael Parenti is a respected scholar in social science and history who has published twenty books [3]. In his WP article, one of his specialties mentioned is issues of class and power, and fudalism would certainly fall within that area of interest. [4]. I think he easily qualifies as as source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
At the same time though, he's not necessarily an expert on Tibetan... whatever you like to call it, feudalism. The title here is problematic in that the social structure in pre-modern Tibet isn't entirely analogous to Western feudalism. Parenti is probably just as much out of his league talking about Tibet as an expert on Victorian Era women's dress would be talking about Tibetan fashion. Not that we can't use him for now, but I think the goal of this article should be to phase out non-expert sources, at least non-expert Western sources. We'll have to use dead-tree sources, but at least we can get the full picture of scholarship on the topic. Dealing with Chinese and Tibetan sources will be a bit trickier. --Gimme danger (talk) 05:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Parenti's article well sourced, and his very extensive references include Melvyn C. Goldstein. The subject of serfdom is within his area of specialty, and he did his research. As for the feudal nature of Tibet before 1950, even writers who strongly support Tibetan Buddhism have discussed it in their books. I recall a number of such mentions in Lama Govinda's Way of the White Clouds, as well as by Nicholas Roerich (who considered himself much more a Buddhist than a Christian by the time of his Asian expeditions) who discusses some of the degraded nature and corruption of Tibetan society that he saw first hand [5]. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
correction: Yes, he is a reputable commentator. But his unpublished essays are not reliable sources in the sense that his academic publications are. Second, he's is this field a general political commentator, not an academic, and makes no pretense and being unbiased. Of course, everyone who writes on this subject is probably biased somewhat. Perhaps we can quote him after all, if we make it clear it's an essay. But I'd still hope for better sources. Incidentally, if anyone is interested, I think his Wikipedia bio needs some work in the direction of objectivity, and rewriting the parts copied directly from his web site.

Concerning Melvyn Goldstein: since Goldstein is an anthropologist I fail to see how he is qualified to be used as a source on issues that are quite outside his specialty. Also, since Goldstein did not even complete graduate school until 1968 -- long after the 1950 Chinese invasion ended serfdom in Tibet -- anything he has to say about the conditions of Tibetan serfs can not be based on his field work (the foundational research method of anthropology), but his facts and conclusions must have been based on other methods than the ones he was actually trained to use. I am, as a result, considering removing those parts of the article that use Goldstein as a source. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments on this in "Sources" above: It is disingenuous to assert that because someone's original academic discipline is one domain then they are disqualified from being an authority on others, especially closely related disciplines.--Jomellon (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Jo, note that you are responding to a comment made over a month ago. If you follow the link to Malcolm Schosha, you'll see that he is long gone. You are right that Malcolm's argument was specious, but there is no longer any threat to expunge Goldstein from the article. Bertport (talk) 21:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
At least Goldstein speaks Tibetan, though, which IMO alone makes his contributions more valuable than most contribbutions of authors who have no grasp of the language. I'm afraid I don't really understand your point, though. Are you saying we cannot cite authors that did not experience their topics firsthand? Then we should probably remove from wikipedia anything that modern authors ever wrote about ancient history, or much of the stuff about physics. Yaan (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I am saying that I do not think Goldstein more qualified on the subject of serfs than Israel Epstein, or Michael Parenti...both of whom have been removed from the article as unqualified sources. We are going to have to apply a uniform standard, and not reject just those sources who show Tibet before 1950 as being a terrible place for serfs, while allowing the source that said it may not have been so bad for serfs. I would like to see a uniform standard, and Goldstein speaking Tibetan does not indicate superior knowledge about the conditions of serfs in Tibet at a time befor he had been there. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course someone who is able to interview witnesses, has access to the primary sources etc., should be more qualified to comment on Tibet's history than someone who can not even help confusing the fourth and the sixth Dalai Lama. Wouldn't you think so? Yaan (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The entire system had been ended by the Chinese long before he got there. I am not saying he has no value as a source, just not more value than other sources that have been rejected. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
You are saying an author who confuses different Dalai Lamas that lived roughly a century apart, or Mongols and Chinese, one who has probably never interviewed Tibetans and is unable to access the primary sources in their original language, should be considered just as valuable as one who speaks Tibetan and has published several very well-received books on Tibetan history? Yaan (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Rather, you tell me what qualifies Goldstein has to write on economic exploitation of slaves and serfs, or on feudal economies, and social stratification under a theocratic government. All we get from Goldstein is that it may not have been so bad, or maybe not in certain sections of Tibet....all based on informants who were no longer serfs, and may never have been. The Chinese actually collected documentation that Goldstein goes not use, and which Free Tibet activist editors here want excluded from the article because (they say) communists are not allowed. What they really want excluded is information that shows just what a corrupt and exploitative society the Tibetans suffered under when it was ruled by its theocratic government -- a government that still exists in exile, but which is benign and beautiful now that it is without a country to harm. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
"Rather, you tell me what qualifies Goldstein has to write on economic exploitation of slaves and serfs, or on feudal economies, and social stratification under a theocratic government." Is Parenti an economist or a sociologist? Yaan (talk) 17:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Parenti's degree is in Political Science, and it would have been natural if his studies included included work in economics and sociology.
But, before we go further with this discussion, I would like to know if you think that Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth is substantially correct in its discussion of the situation of Tibetan serfs, but with some historical errors; or if you think the substance of the article is incorrect? In other words are you trying to disqualify Parenti on points (because he does not know Tibetan, and the mixed up two different Dalai Lamas, etc), or are you prepared to show that Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth is defective in substance? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if Parenti's discussion of the situation of Tibetan serfs is substantially correct. I do know that his discussion of Tibetan history has so substancial errors that, yes, it makes the text as a whole look like the product of shoddy research. And I am not going to sift through all his claims and sort out which ones are "substancially correct" and which are not.
But since you have tried to disqualify Goldstein on the point that he is just an anthropologist: Wouldn't it be equally "natural" that as a historian he also has a grasp of sociology and economics? Maybe we can get back to the beginning of the argument: What exactly is the reason we should treat Parenti's polemic about feudal Tibet as equally valuable as Melvyn C. Goldstein's 1971 paper? Yaan (talk) 13:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yaan, it is not the job of WP editors to decide what is the truth, but, rather, to write a balanced article. I do not see how the article can be balanced without some inclusion of Parenti. But discussing any of this is a waste of my time while Cumulus Clouds reverts every edit I make to the article (and you stand by without any effort to uphold WP neutrality). Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Parenti belongs in the article for the same reason that http://www.studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=424 posts the Parenti essay and a rebuttal by Schrei (http://studentsforafreetibet.org/article.php?id=425). As Schrei says, "I have chosen to dissect this thesis because it houses many of the common arguments presented by Chinese government propagandists on Tibet, as well as many of the arguments that modern day Marxists and Maoists regularly hurl at Tibet activists on internet chat rooms and at protests." This Wikipedia article should set forth representative arguments, and set them in sufficient context for readers to understand who says what, and why, and possibly to see how much validity there is in any pertinent POV. Sources do not have to be neutral, or perfect. In fact, on a controversial topic like this, it's pretty near impossible to find neutral sources. And on any topic under the sun, it's hard or impossible to find perfect sources. Bertport (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving forward

This article was originally created by one or more people who wanted to expound "Serfdom in Tibet" as a legitimate historical topic, but it is a good place to study the political controversy, namely, who characterizes pre-Communist Tibet as a feudal system of serfs and lords, and why, and what are the merits and weaknesses of their claims?.

I would like to take John Hill's work from Talk:History of Tibet and incorporate it into this article. It seems the main reason this topic merits attention is its political potency, not its historical soundness. And so, it should not occupy a lot of turf in History of Tibet. The situation resembles that of Intelligent Design, which has no value as a scientific theory, and thus deserves little if any mention in Evolution, but does merit close examination as a political/religious controversy, and thus gets extensive treatment in its own article. Bertport (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would be more fond of an article on pre-modern society in Tibet (with apprpriate title), which then could also contain some words on serfdom or not. But I won't have time or the deeper insight to add valuable contributions. Yaan (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name

As several editors have already pointed out, the title of this article is problematic. Serf is a loaded term and the title does not reflect the mainstream scholarly point of view that the peasants of Tibet were largely free of the land-bound obligations that characterize European serfdom. I propose the title Feudalism in Tibet, which would alleviate the neutrality issues implicit in the current title and would also allow for a wider scope. Obviously, there's a great deal of disagreement on whether feudalism is the most appropriate term for premodern Tibetan society, but we have to call the article something and this title would be a good starting point for covering the debate. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

So you would not have either title redirect to the new article? I would disagree, only because they may be likely search terms, especially serfdom since that's what the social structure is called in a lot of Chinese literature. I could go either way on slavery, since it doesn't seem like a particularly likely search term. I'm not sure though; I don't know much about redirect policy. What do you think about the title proposal? --Gimme danger (talk) 23:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Feudalism in Tibet is a good change, I think. And yes, let's redirect "Serfdom in Tibet" to the new title. Bertport (talk) 00:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm less enthusiastic about using Feudalism for various reasons but also for what's expressed in the Examples of feudalism article which says "Outside of a medieval European historical context, the concept of feudalism is normally only used by analogy (called semi-feudal)". How about Social classes of Tibet? Or if you really like feudalism, how about Semi-feudalism of Tibet? - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no particular attachment to feudalism, I'm just trying tho think of a succinct title that used outside of wikipedia. Semi-feudalism is alright too, though I don't know how common a search term it would be. Social classes seems to limit the article scope to a list; maybe social structure with copious redirects would be a solution? Gimme danger (talk) 03:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I do seem to have a personal problem with the term, so I need to check myself. But I'm also finding that it's cautioned against in academic circles somewhat. You'll find some relevant comments at Feudalism#Cautions_on_use_of_feudalism for example. Social structure is great to me. I like descriptive titles like that rather than implied analogies. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We could use Unfree Labour in Tibet... and then also cover forced labour camps post the invasion. I've already added a link to the Unfree Labour page in the intro so it'd hook up nicely Dakinijones (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

then we'd need to remove the sections about the wealthier social classes. I think it's important for scope that we cover a context of social class instead of just focusing on the most poor. otherwise we lose important context. related point: it's quite silly in my opinion that Goldstein characterizes those wealthier landed classes as "serfs" - presumably because they were still tied to land holdings and tax responsibilities - but they looked nothing like what conventionally I would consider serfdom or unfree labor. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, if no one objects, in a few days I'm going to move this page to Social structure of Tibet --Gimme danger (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

With recent links to "Serfdom" and "The Alleged Return of Serfdom" the title Serfdom in Tibet seems to be working better... maybe hold off a little longer on moving? --Dakinijones (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems reasonable to me. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually would still prefer to keep the title as is, and keep the focus of the article primarily on the politically motivated assertions that pre-Communist Tibet was a realm of serfs and lords. And I would change the leading sentence to emphasize that this is not primarily a scholarly debate, but a political debate; and cover what scholarship reveals, supports, fails to support. Bertport (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC) How about Alleged serfdom in Tibet or Allegations of serfdom in Tibet? Bertport (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

In that case, an article split might be appropriate, since Owlmonkey and I would like to get an article going on the social structure of pre-modern Tibet. As it is, the article doesn't cover the controversy in any great detail, which is why I think it should be retitled. If you'd like to start an article about the political debate, perhaps we ought to move the material that's present somewhere more appropriate first. As for the first sentence... eh, that was something I put in just to have a lead; if you can think of something better that would be excellent, because it's definitely not acceptable as is.Gimme danger (talk) 00:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm ok with a split. I definitely think we need an article for the social structure. That content was in the polyandry article (but it too needed the context to explain things) but it really needs to live somewhere separate so it can be referred to. There's a lot more to expand there as well. I don't mind this one as "Alleged..." or "Allegations..." and having a topic that includes how the allegations or refutations have been politically motivated as well as the relative merit of any allegations or refutations. - Owlmonkey (talk) 02:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Separate articles for the political debate and the historical social structure makes sense to me. Lead will be much easier to write once the article name - and subject - has been clarified ;-) Dakinijones (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Political motivations

This is just gonna become another editing war, similar to the one going on at Falun Gong, because both sides believe they have justified perspectives when really both sides' judgments are clouded by an implicit animosity and need to prove the other side wrong. This is where one of the basic principles of Wikipedia fails. Colipon+(T) 05:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I still have hope that this can go some reasonable directions instead of a simple push pull. Perhaps adding distinctions will help. For example, part of what I see as a problem with this topic is that little actual data and scholarship is available for certain periods. Most of the data we do have even in terms of academic papers comes from the interviews of just a few small towns or people from a handful of areas and relating to very specific time periods. If we can restrict the scope of the article or designate different time spans, that might help at least narrow any disagreement to specific periods and areas. If we leave the scope of the article vague, about all of tibet over all time, then I fear there will be more room for base disagreement. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
For example, the original quote about slavery in Chumbi Valley really got more rich and clear once the period, context, and the additional comments by that author were added to the claim. It went from being a general claim that nearly implied slavery was widespread in the country without a specific time period at all to a more specific and detailed perspective. I think it is much less contentious but still communicates, at least in my view. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm I see what you're saying. But basically the problem has manifested itself into something along the lines of: Pro-China camp believes that Pro-Tibet camp are ignorant, biased westerners out to get China, and Pro-Tibet camp believes Pro-China camp is just spreading CPC propaganda. Neutral editors are often discredited by both sides as being on the other side. The editing war at Falun Gong has proceeded in this fashion for about 4 years, the page went under full protection at least 6 times. Colipon+(T) 07:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Comparison to nearby regions

Owlmonkey previously expressed interest in providing context for this topic by making comparisons to other regions of Asia. Dakinijones took some initial steps in that direction. The leading paragraph of the article currently raises the question with "...questions include ... whether it was comparable to similar social structures in nearby regions", and that statement is tagged "dubious - discuss". I elaborated a bit and cited some sources supporting the statement (which was in the paragraph at the time) that economic exploitation has existed in Nepal and India.

Cumulus Clouds has repeatedly deleted this material, asserting that it is "synthetic" and "POV". I don't understand what he means by "synthetic", but it is certainly not POV to build out a broader context (as recommended by Owlmonkey and begun by Dakinijones). No one is making any assertion here that the cited sources are about Tibet. Bertport (talk) 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

"to build out a broader context" --Gimme danger (talk) 05:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I do still think it's important to put the larger cultural and regional situation into perspective, in the same way that I think we need to be careful not to characterize Tibet as one political entity or social system over time or between sub-districts. (The central leadership in Lhasa for various periods had authority — in some sense — but likely not the kind of authority or influence over all areas of Tibet the way we think of political control in our modern era. Therefore, I doubt scholarship in just that central region or social structures in that region will accurately represent the whole country or all Tibetan speaking peoples.) Similarly, I wouldn't reference the larger regional issues or perspective in the lead section though. What would you say in summary? "social structures in surrounding countries were somewhat similar and somewhat different". Unless you have a direct comparison that's really notable, it is likely better in a comparative section after a discussion of the details we do have about Tibetan social systems... in my opinion... - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe one sentence in the lead to indicate that regional comparisons are in the mix; then a section in the article, possibly called Comparison to nearby regions. Bertport (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, so I moved that paragraph down to its own section. The lead, and the entire article, still need a lot of work of course, but it will all look different under a new article title anyway, so whatever is done before the move will be affected by that, too. Bertport (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a separate article on 'Serfdom in Tibet'? This article should be removed immediately

Why is there a separate article on 'Serfdom in Tibet' when there is no such article on serfdom in China, India, England, Nepal or, indeed, as far as I can find, on serfdom in any other country at all?

This singling out of Tibet is clearly a politically-motivated attempt to discredit Tibetan culture and people intended to support the PRC's biased account of Tibetan history.

It is an extreme case of POV and should, therefore, be immediately removed and any discussion of 'serfdom' in Tibet should be included under the history of Tibet, as it is for other countries in the Wikipedia. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

John, you're right of course that the topic is politically motivated, but there was already an AfD discussion, and that has been concluded. This article can serve the purpose of exposing the political motivations and weaknesses of the claim, without taking up a lot of space in History of Tibet. Somewhat like Intelligent Design, which can be fully exposed without taking up space in Evolution. Bertport (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
I see there are separate discussions of this topic in History of Tibet and in People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951). In each case, the reason for the material being included is not because of the legitimacy of a particular point of view, but because of the notability of the topic. It's notable because certain groups get mileage out of the claims. If it weren't notable, it wouldn't be discussed at some length in two other articles already.
But why have the topic covered in so many places? I would advocate abbreviating the topic in the other two articles to a sentence or two, with a link to this article.
Incidentally, there is an article on Russian serfdom. But "how many other countries have articles dedicated to allegations of serfdom?" is not the most important consideration. Bertport (talk) 23:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Split

As discussed above, several editors and I think that the topic should be split into two separate articles, one about the social structure of pre-annexation Tibet and another dealing with the current political debate over that structure. Alternatively, since I'm skeptical that the political debate has enough documentation to warrant a separate article at this point, the political debate could be described in a small section of the social structure article and be split off only if enough material is gathered to make another article worthwhile.

As such, I propose renaming this article Social structure of Tibet or Sociology of Tibet and rewriting the lead to reflect the change in focus. Yay or nay? --Gimme danger (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I do think the serfdom topic merits its own article. As Gimme danger noted in the AfD discussion, there are "nearly 1000 Google Scholar hits of articles referring to serfdom in Tibet and approximately 750 Google Books hits." At this time, this article is 50% serfdom and 50% more general social structure. And we have hardly begun to spell out the serfdom/antiserfdom proponents, their lineages of argument and citation, etc. Bertport (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
How about we just split off the historical material and work on the two pages separately for a while? If there's not enough under Allegations of Serfdom in Tibet to warrant a separate article it'll soon become clear and the material can just be incorporated onto another page somewhere. But I think it'll clarify the issue a lot if the pages are split so we can actually see how it's working before we consider whether to keep the political debate page or not. Dakinijones (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Noted today that at 90+ Kb the Tibet page is in need of splitting. That said, shifting the 'feudal serfdom' section there to an Allegations of Serfdom in Tibet page seems more likely than shifting AoST to another page. Dakinijones (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah! Bertport went ahead and did the split and moved us to AOST. I've moved the feudal serfdom material from Tibet page and put here what was encyclopedic enough to use. Put link on Tibet to here and Social classes of Tibet Dakinijones (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah indeed. Perhaps my new resolution should be to be as bold as Bertport. It has a ring to it, don't you think? I will be working on the Social classes of Tibet article later this week. --Gimme danger (talk) 19:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Funny, I didn't think there was anything particularly bold about it, since it had been proposed, and pretty much agreed to by everyone who was paying attention and cared enough to respond, and we waited a while to let any others weigh in. I'd like to say I appreciate the cordial atmosphere of courtesy that has mysteriously descended upon this talk page. Bertport (talk) 20:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

misleading section

I think the following section may give the impression that Mongols, Tuvans etc. are somehow Tibetan-speaking, which is just wrong. Also the "adjacent to the area" seems a bit odd, as Russia is in no way adjacent to Tibet.

Not all Tibetan-speaking peoples in the area have historically dwellt within the even the broadest of the disputed Tibets. Local regions where Tibetan Buddhism - and therefore Tibetan culture as a whole - have been found traditionally include Bhutan, northern India, Nepal, southwestern and northern China, Mongolia and various constituent republics of Russia that are adjacent to the area, such as: Amur Oblast, Buryatia, Chita Oblast, Tuva Republic, and Khabarovsk Krai. Tibetan Buddhism has also been a dominant belief system in Kalmykia, another constituent republic of Russia which constitutes the only traditionally Buddhist region with a claim to being European, being located in the in the Northern Caucasian territory dividing Asia from Europe.

Any suggestions? Yaan (talk) 09:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Moving the bit about language after the bit about Buddhism might solve the problem. Then there's no implication that Tibetan Buddhists are necessarily Tibetan-speaking. --Gimme danger (talk) 10:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
But then we still have the (rather simple) problem of adjecency. But how strong is the relation between Tibetan buddhism and Tibetan serfdom anyway? Would we mention Poland or Argentina in an article about serfdom in Italy? Yaan (talk) 10:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I would guess that it's not particularly strong. I'm not sure why that section is in the article. Comparison of social structures with nearby cultures probably is useful, but I'm not sure what purpose that section serves. --Gimme danger (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's garbled and definitely needs a re-write... but it's intended to present firstly an intro to the next section on local regions... but also a context of social structures and/or unfree labour in somewhat similar cultures to Tibet. Kalmykia is in the unfree labour category also which got me thinking what is the evidence on Wiki for local conditions. But maybe heading too much towards OR, I don't know. It's really not formed... I'll try re-write ASAP Dakinijones (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I see Gimme danger has already done a skillful job of WikiGnoming that worst sentence... thanks Gimme! Dakinijones (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. I can see the value of comparison to other social structures in the region, but I also think your concerns about OR are worth careful thought. It might be possible to find existing comparisons in anthropological/sociological literature, in which case we just cite those comparisons, no worries. Gimme danger (talk) 08:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I find this article wholely problematic, because it lacks proper context for discussing wealth and power inequities in the larger socio-economic situation in that region or as it relates to agrarian and nomadic economics generally. Instead it focuses on power inequity to such a degree as to lose it's context. If we already had articles on the socio-economics of that region through different periods, and there were enough material to then expand beyond that, i could then see articles focusing on specific kinds of inequity. But without the larger context first, this shows up for me as merely a way to denigrate a culture.

yet even if that was possible, i'm not sure there is enough material specifically about Tibet that is not really about socio-economics of agrarian and nomadic tribalism generally in asia. In the following paper, Di Cosmo discusses different views on that tribalism as "feudalism" or not in nearby Mongolian steppe cultures and I think the lack of consensus over whether that term is appropriate also applies to Tibet just as well.

  • Di Cosmo, Nicola, State Formation and Periodization in Inner Asian History Journal of World History - Volume 10, Number 1, Spring 1999, pp. 1-40

but then drawing the comparison between western feudalism and asian structures is also wholely problematic, this article points out the different ways of looking at the two systems and why the comparisons are so problematic and the term might not fit. I highly recommend it, he discusses economic, racial, class, statehood, and process effects and argues against using the feudalism ontology more widely:

  • Barendse, R. J. The Feudal Mutation: Military and Economic Transformations of the Ethnosphere in the Tenth to Thirteenth Centuries Journal of World History - Volume 14, Number 4, December 2003, pp. 503-529

given that, if this article does survive the delete discussion about it, I'd suggest putting significantly greater context in so it's clear this is not just a Tibetan phenomenon but merely a Tibetan instance of a more general situation and one that has aspects that continue even today. we'd need to include discussions of slavery and power inequity in the region generally for comparison, from children and women pressed into the sex trade (which is occurring to many thousands each year in china even today), even historical foot binding, to modern worker inequities in Chinese factories which by UN standards were described recently as bonded servitude or slavery violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. See:

  • Chan, Anita. Labor Standards and Human Rights: The Case of Chinese Workers Under Market Socialism Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 20, Number 4, November 1998, pp. 886-904

also:

  • Paddle, Sarah. The Limits of Sympathy: International Feminists and the Chinese 'Slave Girl' Campaigns of the 1920s and 1930s Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 4, Number 3, Winter 2003 - Article
  • Kent, A. E. (Ann E.) China and the International Human Rights Regime: A Case Study of Multilateral Monitoring, 1989-1994 Human Rights Quarterly - Volume 17, Number 1, February 1995, pp. 1-47

We'd also need to include more background into tribal history and diversity of economic systems across tribal regions. But that might not yet be possible, because so little is known or recorded. The records were not nearly as centralized nor systematized as say in Beijing at that same era for comparison. I can find some discussion of specific regions, ruled by different tribal chieftans but not with specific details about how land and labor was managed, such as:

  • Dai, Yingcong. The Qing State, Merchants, and the Military Labor Force in the Jinchuan Campaigns Late Imperial China - Volume 22, Number 2, December 2001, pp. 35-90

According to that source, it seems that tribal obligations included providing laborers or military to various invading forces or more powerful nearby regions to keep the peace. This is, I think, pretty common in tribal (non-state based) pre-industrial society and not something specific to Tibet. Is that an example of serfhood and feudalism? Doesn't seem Tibetan particularly to me. If we went that far, we might as well for comparison mention how the poor chinese were treated like serfs in 19th century america:

  • Jung, Moon-Ho, Outlawing "Coolies": Race, Nation, and Empire in the Age of Emancipation American Quarterly - Volume 57, Number 3, September 2005, pp. 677-701

but as i mentioned earlier, using serf and feudalism ontologically in this way is misleading. in my opinion putting the socio-economics in context and taking more care with the ontology of terms just makes it all the more obvious that this is less something specific to or worth highlighting about Tibet and its various tribes and ethnic groups. Doing so puts wealth and power inequities there too out of context and tries to make a pejorative point about Tibet or Tibetans that is not neutral nor warranted. But if we started instead an article like Socio-economics of Tibet and discuss that more generally, framed by the different historical periods and tribal situations, it would be a truly different article to undertake. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Better, Socio-economics of pre-industrial Central Asia since these features are really about the whole region. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I am for keeping it focused on Tibet, and maybe even keeping some feudalism-related title, or maybe something like Society in pre-modern Tibet. I have not read any of the articles you mention, but the fact alone that some societies are agrarian, while others are nomadic, and that some (Tibetan Buddhists) have a rather big monastic sector while others (Muslims) don't, leads me to believe that there are sufficient differences to look into each society on its own. I agree this article should focus on Tibet's pre-modern society, not on similar structures that may exist in Tibet or elsewhere today. Yaan (talk) 11:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

:thanks for your input Owlmonkey, but I don't know if this one will survive, it has been edited by Cumulus Clouds greatly, most of the sources are out. Do you believe that if a source says "serfs or slavery existed in Tibet" then the source is unreliable like what Cumulus Clouds says? All the things you mentioned can be fixed, but the problem is Cumulus Clouds denies the existence of serfs, even giving him all the resources. I don't know how to convince him.Centrallib (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry for the wordy replies. even though the question was struck for being banned, this is a large topic for me. with respect to slavery: is there anywhere that slaves did not exist if we go back far enough in time? i'm not sure there's enough agreement that it is a notable feature of Tibetan history compared to everywhere else. and slavery is still a worldwide problem, in particular of children and the sex industry. so then what's the point being made specifically about Tibet? Describing scholarship for how slavery was viewed and the timeline for it's discouragement in comparison to the rest of the world might be interesting and more neutral, but we'd need to find that scholarship first. But to just say that there were slaves there at some point is meaningful how? i suspect it's coming up because of a mythology in popular culture that tibet was some sort of shangri-la: which is just mythology. Or that the religious ideals of Buddhism would have magically trumped the social and political reality to create a shangri-la, also a silly idea though seemingly in popular culture.
Similarly, making points about power inequity in agricultural regions of Tibet is interesting but a blanket statement characterizing the entire region as feudal is probably incorrectly applying a European ontology onto a different situation: it ignores nomadic tribes (where there is no "land owner" at all), kingdoms that were not under any central authority (necessary for a uniform "system" to be imposed by the nation or state), and generally tries to draw a comparison of the social systems there with Medieval Europe instead of discussing what it really was like there (it's starting with the metaphor instead of with the facts basically).
A scholarly comparison between poor people and legal systems in Asia and Europe is interesting for sure, and in those I do find some scholars using the term serf. For example, Christopher Isett in Village Regulation of Property and the Social Basis for the Transformation of Qing Manchuria (Late Imperial China - Volume 25, Number 1, June 2004, pp. 124-186) uses the term to discuss Manorial-bound labor in Manchuria in the 17th century. That seems to much more closely match the European situation and character, but that was not universal to China as a whole. Goldstein in Serfdom and Mobility uses the term serf when discussing nomadic tribes in Tibet but he as much uses the term to discuss tribal obligation as to detail how it was really unlike European feudalism with greater mobility and not based on agricultural obligations. I'm not sure how he can really use the term "serf" then but he's contrasting the term by using it? I find the term serf probably as skewed as the idyllic mythology of monasticism, because of a pejorative tone in English that is deep in the collective European and English language psyche. It implies slavery and complete bondage, not necessarily tribal association and obligations. My guess is it is chosen for slight shock value more than for accuracy. Wei-chin Lee in The Courage to Stand Alone: Letters from Prison and Other Writings (review) (China Review International - Volume 6, Number 2, Fall 1999, pp. 550-553) for example uses "serfdom" not to describe pre-modern Tibet but to criticize the modern, soviet-style socialism that was imposed upon Tibet. Wei writes of Chinese communism as, "nothing more than a hybrid of Western serfdom and Asian bureaucratic commercialism, which ends up being the type of feudal socialism that Marx once said was still ‘tattooed on rear ends’". He seems to use the term as more a pejorative criticism than a neutral, scholarly comparison to European social systems. But the pejorative usage is something we need to avoid to be encyclopedic.
Maybe using the Tibetan terms would be better, and then comparing them to European or other socio-economic systems for similarity and differences would be more neutral. But the article would then be more about how they are and also are *not* serfs in the European sense, and the article's title and topic would need to change. We might want to make comparisons to the Indian caste system, nomadic societies and tribal obligations in the Middle East and Africa, Chinese and Russian land ownership and poverty, etc. to show the range of land ownership systems and how societies relate to poverty and production. But generally we need to take care in comparing a European view of socio-economics and trying to stamp it onto the Central Asian situation or we start off on the wrong foot, as well as care in comparing different time periods and cultures out of context. If this article was titled "Caste systems of Tibet" it would have similar problems. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason that Tibet is different from other countries in the region or the world is that Tibet is claimed to have been a Shangri-la due to being governed by a Buddhist theocracy, and perrmeated by Buddhist outlook and compassion.

So the conditions prevailing in Tibet are uniquely relevant to determining the strength of this claim, and the quality of the spiritual tradition which produced them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomellon (talk • contribs) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the Tibetans made that claim particularly, I've heard the opposite even from lamas who left who felt that buddhism had fallen there to mere materialism. We need to be clear who and in what context such a claim of shangri-la is made. It's certainly not scholarly. Do you think that's the popular culture outlook? Then it should be easy to find a scholarly or even more popular citation simply stating that the shangri-la notion is mere mythology. Which it is. That is sufficient. No need to try to debunk a popular mythology by critiquing the culture or religion, since the culture and religion are not making that claim. -Owlmonkey (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama himself stated that “the pervasive influence of Buddhism” in Tibet, “amid the wide open spaces of an unspoiled environment resulted in a society dedicated to peace and harmony. We enjoyed freedom and contentment.”

Dalai Lama quoted in Donald Lopez Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (Chicago and London: Chicago University Press, 1998), 205. --Jomellon (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not the same as claiming that Tibet was a utopia. HHDL also acknowledges that morally unacceptable exploitation existed. Then he points out that the Tibetan nyamthag (the weak and the poor) had food and clothing and did not generally hate the landlords, in contrast to China in the same era. (Laird 2006, pp. 317-319 again) But, yes, part of the subtext of this controversy is the perception that premodern Tibet is unrealistically idealized by at least some of its defenders. Bertport (talk) 04:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An idealised Old Tibet has definitely been used to market Lamaism in the West.

For example Robert Thurman's (definitely a friend of the DL, and one of the 25 most influential people in the US according to Time) book: "Inner Revolution": Tibet was "a mandala of the peaceful, perfected universe."

Old Tibet was not particularly peaceful or ethical. This in no way invalidates Buddhism, nor the spiritual credentials of specific persons. It does however pose a problem for populist, romanticised Tibet mythology and is also relevant to current Tibetan/Chinese politics. --Jomellon (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

tags at head of article

So, do we still need the POV and citation tags at the head of the article? It's still a start-class article, lots of work to be done, but that doesn't mean it needs these tags. Bertport (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with removing them. --Gimme danger (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I think they could go too Dakinijones (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Though I'm sure I'll be immediately overruled by Bertport, who hasn't yet listened to a single thing I've said, I disagree that this article is neutral. Even worse, in an attempt to expand the size of the page, two poorly worded sections have been added to the article based on questionable scholarship and coddled together with unpublished synthesis. Though it's barely relevant to the topic at hand, there's a bunch of text about what region is defined as "Tibet." This, again, comes back to the heart of the problem with this article, which is that "Serfdom in Tibet" is nearly impossible to define and "Allegations of serfdom in Tibet" is even harder to define since you have to preface every single thing in the article with a bunch of caveats about where the information comes from. Besides that, "Allegations of serfdom in Tibet" is a) a stupid title b) nonneutral in any form, since the allegations come from only one party and are designed to achieve one purpose, which is to undermine the credibility of the Tibetan government and finally c) a really poor topic for an article since most of the information can be contained in Tibet. Social classes in Tibet is, on the other hand, a fine idea for an article because it talks about something real that can be definitively researched and sourced to academic references and be entirely neutral. Even if that article says "well, the chinese government said there were serfs, but the tibetan government says their weren't" that would be fine since it is germaine to the discussion about the social structure. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Cumulus re: the Allegations title, though "stupid" is not the word I would have chosen. There's already been a big to do about this word regarding articles titled "Allegations of apartheid in X" and if I recall the use of the word was discouraged. Again, as I've said above, I don't think there's enough material about the political use of these claims to warrant an article separate from the general Social classes of Tibet article. --Gimme danger (talk) 00:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I proposed "alleged" or "allegations" on 21 June above, and let a week go by for people to respond. The first response was from Gimme danger, and her response looked agreeable to me. Owlmonkey and Dakinijones consented. There were no objections made. So I thought this was going to be a non-controversial change. If "allegations" in the title is a bad idea, I have no problem with reverting to the original Serfdom in Tibet. The topic of the article is a high-profile meme and a political argument. This is legitimate material for Wikipedia. See Tibet during the Ming Dynasty for an article which addresses Chinese assertions that the Ming Dynasty included/ruled over Tibet, and Intelligent design for an article which addresses an organized propaganda flim-flam masquerading as science. Bertport (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Well I would have objected, except that doesn't seem to matter since you never seem to care. "Serfdom in Tibet" is a bad title for an article. "Allegations of serfdom in Tibet" is even worse. The solution here is not to reverse course back to the bad title, but to make the information fit somewhere under a heading that does not suck. I would advise that you merge the relevant information here to Social classes of Tibet because that title, like Tibet during the Ming Dynasty is neutral and does not make any presumptions one way or the other. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
My apologies - didn't intend to hijack your discussion. Dakinijones (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Name change - again?

I think the discussion about whether this page's contents should be shifted to another should be separate from the one about whether "allegations" should be in the title and so I'm doing this new header. Personally I'd prefer that we don't return to "Serfdom in Tibet"... for all the reasons we moved from it. So if there's a name change - I don't particularly have an opinion either way at this point - I'd suggest "Serfdom in Tibet controversy" since that appears to be a form used to address a politicised debate that is already in use on Wiki. Dakinijones (talk) 08:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Serfdom in Tibet controversy is fine with me. Bertport (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm also fine with it. - Owlmonkey (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

So... pending the results of any discussion re whether the content should be moved to some already existent article, I intend to move this to 'Serfdom in Tibet controversy'. We have 3 explicit agreements. Has anyone any objection? Dakinijones (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Why's that? The change wouldn't prevent the material being moved to 'Social classes of Tibet' - or any other appropriate page - whenever that should be decided. Dakinijones (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the name change. I've been skeptical about the potential of this as an independent article, but the work that's been done since the split is impressive. Kudos to all involved. --Gimme danger (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Well it's been a week and Cumulus Clouds doesn't seem to want to explain their objection. We have four agreements. I'll move the page to Serfdom in Tibet controversy tomorrow unless some explanation of an objection appears before then Dakinijones (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I support this move - the sooner the better. John Hill (talk) 22:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


Unfree Labour

The following is irrelevant to the topic, which is about about the social system in old Tibet, in particular whether it was roughly analogous to serfdom in Europe.

"However in modern times it has been argued that Communist regimes in the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China themselves amount to a return to government-owned serfdom. (See the Alleged Return of Serfdom.)"

"Accusations of the existence of unfree labour of all sorts has been a recurrent theme, the accusations covering periods both before and after the People's Liberation Army invasion of Tibet (1950–1951)."

These is possibly relevant to a political discussion of the justification for the PRC annexation in the 50's, but is irrelevant to this discussion. Communist and PRC oppression is another - very valid - topic.

The kernel point is to whether and to what extent the system in Old Tibet was coercive and oppressive, and involved what we would today regard as human rights violations, more than a technical discussion of the term "serf", or "Unfree Labour".

No, the topic is not restricted to Old Tibet. Bertport (talk) 13:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Certainly many comparisons are very relevant (also to other Asian societies). Indeed the use of the word 'serf' is a comparison to social forms extant in Europe. But surely the focus must be on Old Tibet: by focusing on the issue: "Was there a 'serf like' society in Old Tibet?" the topic is clear, and useful to browsers, not matter their motivation for reading on the topic.
I think people will come to this page for information about Old Tibet for many reasons: the PRC allegations and justifications, but also to examine Tibetan Buddhist Millenarianism. Tibetan Buddhists acolytes (eg Thurman) assert
Buddhism promotes peace, compassion, wisdom and harmony in the individual and so the world.
Further Tibetan Buddhism is the most advanced form of the Buddhist teachings, and this is shown by the peace, justice and harmony prevailing in Old Tibet.
If Old Tibet is shown to have contained exploitative, coercive or even brutal aspects then these millenarian claims are placed under stress - which may be the emotive heart of this debate.
None the less the NPOV on this issue may lie outside the comfort space of Tibetan Buddhist believers, especially recent converts as opposed to Tibetans themselves. --Jomellon (talk) 20:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The genesis of this article is, "the Chinese (and maybe some others) say the Tibetan masses were serfs under the old order; others (mostly sympathetic to Tibetan autonomy and/or independence) find this offensive and/or disagree." There is a very interesting context, with many subtexts, surrounding this controversy, of what the assertion means to various contenders, including the dismantling of an idealized picture of Old Tibet, and the justification of an idealized picture of Chinese communism. The more this context can be spelled out authoritatively in this article, the better the article will be. Bertport (talk) 21:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
If I came as a reader to this article I would want to know "Did Old Tibet practice serfdom or not? What conditions prevailed?". I agree it is very relevant to know that some allegations of an iniquitous social order in Old Tibet are motivated by PRC propaganda needs. Whether the PRC was more or less repressive or unjust than Old Tibet is I feel a different discussion.--Jomellon (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

"Allegations" of unfree labour is also a Weasel Word. There is no doubt that unfree labour, up to and including slavery, existed in Old Tibet. The debate is more on the extent of compulsory labour and how prevelant, oppressive and coercive it was.

See the Name change - again? section below. Bertport (talk) 06:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See the "sources" section below, and read Goldstein in the original. He describes the conditions pertaining in detail, and his account is uncontested except on marginal points. (See my notes there on the debate with Miller, or better, read the debate in the original)

http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-orig.pdf

--Jomellon (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It's much harder for an article here to draw conclusions that characterize the situation in Tibet; it would be easier to describe the social structure and its features and then let wikipedia readers draw their own conclusions.
I agree, see below. --Jomellon (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

To say that it was "coercive" or "oppressive" would likely be drawing an opinion not born by the scholarship, unless scholars have themselves drawn that conclusion. But in the source there you suggestion, Centralization.pdf, on page 180 Goldstein seems to describe the peasant situation as being anything but coercive or oppressive. He writes:

If we take Goldstein's view as definitive — ignoring that his view is not universally accepted (it's not uncontested), but for the moment accept what he's saying — then it doesn't sound very oppressive or coercive if peasants had little contact with officials at all and they were not interfered with!

First I should apologise for not posting the correct reference for this debate. I have changed the reference above to the correct paper. http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-orig.pdf

In your quote Goldstein is discussing interference by the Central Government as distinct from the control exerted by local lords, and he is talking about a particular type of village: the 'villages of government serfs' (gzhung rgyugs pa) --Jomellon (talk) 21:54, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We can talk about how heavy the taxes were and whether that constituted oppression, or if labor requirements as a form of tax is oppression, etc. Or we can discuss the specific nature of being tied to a district for one's tax responsibility. But really we're then drawing a line concerning how much tax is too much tax and how flexible are tax responsibilities. We probably don't have the real data or scholarship to draw the line anyway.
In contrast, I personally live in a state of the USA, and I have tax obligations. I'm pretty much left alone as long as I keep paying those tax obligations. I can move states, but I'm still bound to pay federal tax even if I move to another country. Am I a serf then or oppressed by the US? Some would argue I am but that's a fringe view. If taxes were increased significantly I would experience them as oppressive, but I'm no were near being a "serf" by that definition nor oppressed or coerced really. So then what distinctions are drawn to characterize the Tibetan poor people as oppressed exactly? Let's be clear about what we're talking about. Anyway, the source you cite there seems to contradict a claim of oppression. Again Goldstein's use of the term "serf" is highly suspect to me, he uses the term even to describe really wealthy land-owning families. It's absurd in my opinion. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Goldstein backs up this claim in the 'mmdebate.pdf' paper cited above, specifically justifying its use for relatively wealthy families and individuals by giving case studies where they slid down the scale. (It was also possible to slide up too.) He argues very specifically for the use of the word 'serf'. Later in the debate with Miller he agreed to differ on the use of the word 'serf' as he considered that debate on the word distracted from the examination of the conditions and relations existing between 'mi ser' and lord.

No matter where mi ser currently were on the scale, and even if through the system of 'human lease' they went to live outside the area of the lord, they still belonged to the lord, who could change the amount due in corvee or tax at will. Also the descendants of an owned individual also belonged to the lord. An individual could not change his liege lord.

You may have to pay tax, but you do not belong to General Motors or AT&T! Nor will your children belong to your employer! Your employer cannot decide that you must work an extra 20 hours unpaid this week as his harvest is ripe. (Ok in the US maybe he can!) Your employer will not arrive on your doorstep and tell you that your 13 year old daughter is also now liable to do unpaid work, and so she must start working in his kitchen. It seems that if she was pretty she might end up working in his bed.

The forms of coercion which a lord might use are also relevant to the status of serfdom. Whipping seems to have been the most common punishment. Tashi Tsering describes his brutal whipping in the 1940s (as a 13 year old) for a minor misdemeanor. "The Struggle for Modern Tibet: The Autobiography of Tashi Tsering"

Judicial mutilation (eg chopping off the feet of persistent runaways) was made illegal in Tibet in 1913. Which means it was legal in 1912. In fact it was legal from the 13th century until 1913 under the penal code formulated by the Sakyas.

That is what made even well-off farmers into serfs, and rather unlike the tax payers of the State of Delaware! Indeed such conditions of serfdom or peasantry were what caused many future Americans to flee Europe.

A short list of social conditions prevailing according to Goldstein:

Non-monastic Tibetans were either 'mi ser' (95%) or lords (5%)
the status of 'mi ser' was hereditary, the ownership by a particular lord existed from birth
there was no judicial right to leave a particular lord
there were different category of 'mi ser' and it was possible to move between these categories, up and down.
male 'mi ser' belonged to their father's lord, female to their mother's
substantial unpaid work obligations were owed by a 'mi ser' to a lord, enforceable from age 13
judicial authority over a 'mi ser' was vested in the lord, meaning he was judge and jury over his 'mi ser'
serf obligations were enforced by whipping and until 1913 mutilation

In the paper noted above (http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/booksAndPapers/mmdebate-orig.pdf) Goldstein provides evidence for these assertions and 'threw down the gauntlet' to other academics (specifically Miller, Micheal, Dargay, Aziz) who had disputed them. It seems only Miller took up the challenge, and I have given a short summary of that in "Sources" above (the first section with that title).

The full debate is published by Goldstein at: http://www.case.edu/affil/tibet/tibetanSociety/social.htm. Miller did not fare too well in it IMHO, but read it yourselves.

I would like to hear which academics currently contest these specific assertions, in which papers. I suggest we publish this list of prevailing social conditions with an attribution to Goldstein. --Jomellon (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You should really read much of the debates on this topic that already are documented on the Talk:History_of_Tibet discussion page. Many years after the Miller/Goldstein debate we don't see scholars using the serf label but are more likely to reject it. e.g. Childs, Laird, and Robert Barnett (from 2003 to 2008), and they cite W. M. Coleman (1998), Dieter Schuh (1988), and others already mentioned. Goldstein's viewpoint didn't stick, we don't find serf used in the recent academic literature except in discussing how it doesn't apply, as far as I can find. Can you find a citation post 2000 that argues for the serf usage?
For example, make sure to review Talk:History_of_Tibet#Did_oppressive_.E2.80.9Cfeudal_serfdom.E2.80.9D_exist_in_Tibet_before_the_Chinese_arrived.3F and Talk:History_of_Tibet#Additional_notes as well as the Childs (2003) citation from the Social classes of Tibet article. -Owlmonkey (talk) 04:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is really in its infancy, and it shows in many places. There are several books that show up on Amazon searches, which have not entered into the conversation. In light of the conversation above, here are some specific questions I would like to see carefully addressed, with citations, in the article:

  • To what extent has Goldstein retreated from characterizing Tibetan peasants as serfs? What are his reasons for doing so?
  • Are there other academics outside China who call them serfs?
  • Do other academics actively dispute the term, or just avoid using it? If actively disputed, on what grounds?
  • What are the thematic and/or POV differences between academic and journalistic coverage of the topic?

Bertport (talk) 21:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish there were some definitive papers answering these questions. I keep looking but not finding anything not already mentioned. Not that many papers out there? I will keep looking. Here are some more on the outskirts, just sampling what's out there. I find "feudal" used in passing as an adjective for old Tibet in some papers, but rarely anyone discussing what they mean by that. Lot more papers on Qing China quasi-feudalism and what features it had and theories for why it was re-instituted in the 17th century... the scholarship there has more data to work with clearly - detailed court records and the like. There are some papers from 1996 to 1999 published in the Beijing Review and China Today, but I don't think we can trust the neutrality of those.

  • Tsering Shakya. (2000) The Waterfall and Fragrant Flowers: The Development of Tibetan Literature Since 1950 Manoa - Volume 12, Number 2, 2000, pp. 28-40 (she concludes feudal themes and critiques in literature in Tibet since 1950 appear as propaganda and mainly because the party would only allow publication of that kind of narrative)
  • Isett, Christopher M. (2004) Village Regulation of Property and the Social Basis for the Transformation of Qing Manchuria Late Imperial China - Volume 25, Number 1, June 2004, pp. 124-186 (This does not discuss Tibet, but I mention it because it details manorial feudalism in 17th century china and most interestingly notes how the legal system bound tenants to manors in a serf-like system, but also details subterfuge and how commoners sold land behind the backs of local officials. Because court records were better in that region of China, the scholars had a window into seeing what really was going on as opposed to just the official rules of law. Nonetheless the paper begins stating the limitation of data and what's really available. So to me this is an example of just of how it's very possible things in tibet were more complex than the simplified views generated from Goldstein's interviews and Childs followon work would allow. The U-Tsang legal system of debt and land management in Tibet very well could say one thing and the reality on the ground would be different. But we won't know without better data. Though this citation could be used to express how land laws in neighboring china were not always followed and instead a more complex set of situations emerged based on economic conditions - which only makes sense to me.)

I don't get the sense that there is a huge number of scholars who look at this topic. This may relate to the fact that there is perhaps little new data to analyze. It's too bad, the oldest generation in tibet would remember still some of the lifestyle of the 1930's and 40's, but that perspective will be gone soon. Along those lines I found this:

  • "Speaking Bitterness": Autobiography, History, and Mnemonic Politics on the Sino-Tibetan Frontier. By: Makley, Charlene. Comparative Studies in Society & History, Jan2005, Vol. 47 Issue 1, p40-78, 39p, 1 map, 6 color; (AN 15618236) (I don't have a copy of this paper but I would really love to read it. She did what I was hoping, interviewing the oldest in a small town there)
  • PING QINGMO ZAI CHUANBIAN, XIZANG DE GAIGE XINZHENG. / A review of political reforms on the western frontier of Sichuan and Tibet in the late Qing dynasty. Yang, Ce.; Fuyin Baokan Ziliao: Zhongguo Jindai Shi 1992 (1): 45-51 7p. Historical Period: 1904-10 (AN: H001468336.01) (this looks really interesting about eastern Tibet but I don't have a copy of it either)

But that's it for today... - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on what I've seen so far, I don't see a case for claiming that Goldstein's usage has been rejected by the academic community. Childs appears to be uncommitted -- see http://artsci.wustl.edu/~gchilds/gc/3051_Syllabus.html . Laird is a journalist, and in any case, I did not read him as outright repudiating the terminology. Barnett is not exactly an academic. William Monroe Coleman is apparently at Columbia University. I found his Master's thesis from U. Hawaii -- http://www.columbia.edu/itc/ealac/barnett/pdfs/link3-coleman-ch3-4.pdf which does take Goldstein head on. I didn't see a date on it, and don't know what sort of status a master's thesis deserves in scholarly discourse, but note that the thesis is made available by Barnett's space at Columbia. Dieter Schuh? Is there anything in English from him? Bertport (talk) 20:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes I don't find a definitive conclusion somewhere, so it's more interpretive. But in the Childs example you found, he's using the term feudal and serf to describe an extreme view. The Coleman thesis bibliography includes works up to 1998, so it must be at least that recent. That one is great. I found it interesting on page 21 in that he characterizes Goldstein as, "Melvyn Goldstein, the most prolific (and perhaps controversial) western scholar of modern Tibetan history and anthropology." He doesn't explicitly state why Goldstein can be characterized as controversial, but then immediately talks about his serf usage so probably he refers specifically to that. And this gives us a look into how the academic community viewed Goldstein if this is a general statement about him. As you said, he goes head on. But at the same time he implies that Goldstein is generally controversial for the serf usage, not that Coleman in particular disagrees with the serf usage. That's a great citation. Thank you for finding that!! For Mr. Schuh, unfortunately I only find things by him in German, except for something he edited from 1976 called MONUMENTA TIBETICA HISTORICA, but nothing he wrote himself. - Owlmonkey (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks owlmonkey, I would be very interested in these sources and in further sources such as "PING QINGMO..." The Chinese scholars have the enormous advantage of being able to read and understand the Chinese (and possibly Tibetan) sources and context. Are the Dieter Schuh references available on the web? I can read German, so they would be useful to me.
wrt the Coleman, I haven't read it carefully yet, but while there is some clear disagreement with Goldstein, there is also agreement. He seems to be based on Goldstein's research but reinterpreting by emphasising de facto ways a 'mi ser' could avoid or alieviate de jure obligations. He also says though: (page 10) "For mi ser, life in old Tibet was, I am confident, lived at or below a bare level of subsistence amidst widespread exploitation and corruption. However, despite Goldstein's cogent rebuttal of earlier critics (to which none have responded in publication), I have shown that an important counternarrative of autonomy and freedom existed within the traditional socio-economic structure of Tibet."
The "considerable advantage" you attribute to Chinese scholars is illusory. They are not the only ones who can read Chinese, much less Tibetan. They do labor under the considerable disadvantage of being required to limit their work and language to what supports PRC policy. Bertport (talk) 13:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Many Asian people can speak European languages, but it would be remarkable if the principle experts on European history were regarded as being Asian ones. We can also question the impartiality of western scholarship: a researcher in a Tibetan research institute financed largely by western Buddhist converts may feel, shall we say, a certain pressure to spin any bad news. The 19th and early 20th century European explorers and agents were largely Christian and convinced of their colonial mission and the superiority of the Caucasian. --Jomellon (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
One can also note that a European serf could become a 'freeman', and some Roman slaves could become wealthy enough to purchase their freedom, or even lend their masters money. No-one however uses these 'narratives' to dispute that serfdom existed in Europe, or slavery in ancient Roman. While Coleman's narrative might if confirmed nuance Goldstein's picture, it will not overturn it.
Interesting the comment on the academic debate. Coleman seems to confirm that apart from Miller, the others - Michael, Dargyay and Aziz - hid in the bushes and never came out. So much for Crossette's "scholars of Tibet mostly agree that there has been no systematic serfdom in Tibet in centuries." Does she name these scholars who "mostly agree"? I cannot find the reference.
I think we are seeing three different pictures emerging:
- from the academic sources a feudal society "lived at or below a bare level of subsistence amidst widespread exploitation and corruption." (Coleman), alleviated by bright spots of practical avoidance, and darkened by frequent brutal whippings and (before 1913) much less frequent mutilation.
- from the journalistic sources close to the Tibetan lobby a revisionist history of a romanticised land of spirituality, happiness and compassion (with a few blemishes)
- from the journalistic PRC aligned sources monster lamas and landlords constantly mutilating their serfs --Jomellon (talk) 04:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

With regards to editing I feel it is important to distinguish these world views and not make a camp aligned journalist with a few articles or popular books into a source with the same significance as a heavyweight peer reviewed scholar.

I don't see what we've found painting things in such extremes. For example, in the recently added citations in the human rights section, we find that crime was considered low except for bandits and people avoided the legal system and used arbitrage amongst themselves because the laws were stiff, not that stiff laws imply that punishment was widespread and abusive and oppressive. And we also found earlier that so called serf's were left alone for the most part, but had heavy tax burdens and required labor as part of that tax burden. I agree that poor people heavily taxed — no matter the country or era — is an awful situation. A good portion of the current world lives at a subsistence level and some would say that's inherently exploitive when the rest of the world is wealthy but is that a definitive determination or interpretive, and in what ways is that different than any other part of the world past or present?
The controversy expressed in this article to me has as much to do with characterizing the differences between poor peasants and their obligations and lifestyle whether or not the definition of feudal serfdom from Europe applies or not. To some degree this article is framed answering the question "Is it valid to characterize poor people in Tibet and their legal status as serfs or the social system as feudal?" because that is what has been argued and it's a controversial claim in political contexts and it's also controversial when placed along side the mythology of tibet as shangri-la.
But there is not clear consensus in the academic community for use of the term, and we disagree that Goldstein's publications make for a definitive finding. Since there is no definitive finding in the academic community that we agree upon then we're only left with presenting what specific facts there are about poverty in tibet and the tax and legal system and leaving it non-definitive: basically that poverty was rough (as always), some call it feudal and some do not, and here are the features that have been described so far. Those features can go into specific examples of punishment, etc. but need to be compared in context to the norms of a particular century in which we find them (and not compared to 21st century ethic views) and also tempered with how little actual data the research is based upon. Then we leave it up to the reader.
We can continue to go into the arguments for why some of those features say it was feudal and some counter that, or why some think it's oppressive or exploiting, or whether journalists do or don't compared to academics, but then are we still focusing too much on trying to pin it down — to find a definitive answer basically where there is none — as in "was it or was it not feudal", etc?? I think we're should be moving beyond arguing for a definitive answer at this point. Can we agree that there is no definitive finding on that now or are we still laboring to prove some final characterization? Are we in the grips of a confirmation bias? I think it's time to give up thinking that some new source is going to finally take us over a line to a conclusive and non-arguable position. And we should polish what we have and add details and perspective to help the reader frame the facts and put them in context for the corresponding era and cultural viewpoint. - Owlmonkey (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Editing?

This edit translates as: "There was a debate. Scholars agree Miller was right"

This is a bit like reporting "Brazil played Canada at football yesterday. Football experts agree that Canada was the better team". ... and forgetting to mention that Brazil won 6-0 --Jomellon (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You've done the homework of reading through the debate. Why don't you elaborate (in the article itself) what the actual substance of the debate was, as you did here in the talk page, but with page-number citations? The Crossette line can be separated into a new paragraph, or moved to another place, if you see one more appropriate. Bertport (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I did that, and would be grateful for comments. I haven't added the page numbers yet: I will do that later today.--Jomellon (talk) 04:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Article structure

I'd like to organize this article somewhat along the following lines: Comparison to serfs becomes Western scholarship. The journalists' material moves to a separate section, Journalism. Another new section, Political implications or something like that, to sketch out the subtexts of justifying and vilifying one side or another in the propaganda wars. Goldstein probably deserves his own subsection under Western scholarship - whether his view is final or not, he is the central figure of the debate in Western scholarship. And a section for Chinese scholarship? Does Journalism get subdivided into Western journalism and Chinese journalism? Bertport (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sexual usage of serfs

An area that seems to me to be 'underlit' is the area of the sexual usage of people at the bottom end of the power scale: low status serfs and monks especially very young persons. This would highlight the way large differences in power were actually used: humanely or abusively.

Tashi Tsering in his book "The Struggle for Modern Tibet, The Autobiography of Tashi Tsering" recounts being frequently homosexually raped as a young monk (under 13), until he could 'save' himself by becoming the "drombo" (catamite) of a senior monk. (He was not himself homosexual). He maintains that this was common.

Lords could command domestic service from about 13 years of age in principle, practically especially from the children of landless and heavily indebted mi ser. Does anyone have primary sources on what this meant in practice?

The tantric texts specify that 12 was the ideal age for a 'dakini' (female participant in a tantric sexual ritual) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakini and Trimondi http://www.iivs.de/~iivs01311/SDLE/Contents.htm) esp. Chapter 3.

'The Maha Siddha Saraha distinguishes five different wisdom consorts on the basis of age: the eight-year-old virgin (kumari); the twelve-year-old salika; the sixteen-year-old siddha, who already bleeds monthly; the twenty-year-old balika, and the twenty-five-year-old bhadrakapalini, who he describes as the “burned fat of prajna” (Wayman, 1973, p. 196)."'

How common was the actual (as opposed to visualized) enactment of these rituals? What age and how voluntary were the participants? --Jomellon (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the mi ser corvee labor and what that looks like, there isn't much research but we've already cited most of it here already. As for Tantric practice, good luck finding sources that detail how precisely secret mantra was practiced, especially the most secret practices, but at the same time consider that at the beginning of each practice one renews a vow to help, support, and labor for the benefit of others. Especially sexual practices, I heard a lama once say that if you do not have a completely compassionate view and stabilized experience of suchness then a sexual practice will merely cause the practitioner to be reincarnated as a genital parasite. He literally said reborn as a genital parasite. There's definitely the risk of misusing practices like that, and the lineages have claims like that in place most likely to prevent abuse. But when they're so secret, how does one know. This however is a larger topic about Tantra I think than what this article is about. I think I see you making a point about power dynamics and abuse of those. I'm sure every power difference will produce examples of abuse, but to point that out does not mean that the abuse was systemic nor encouraged nor the intent of the practices. So for those reasons I think it's unlikely that these practices were in a widespread way used for abuse, even if it is possible to find examples of abuse. Also, the tantric texts come from India. I'm not sure what the average age of marriage was at that time in India, but perhaps it was less than how we define adulthood today in the 21st century? The average age of adulthood and sexuality has I think been increasing over the last couple hundred years even in the West, (maybe I'm wrong about that I think 14 is still enough to marry in some places) so I have no idea what it was and what was considered appropriate and culturally valid over a thousand years ago. Perhaps someone has researched this though. Tsering's book and what happened to him are terrible, granted. His claim that it was common we would need to get into in more detail here to see what he means and what other views there may be, but then related to this article how is sexual abuse in a church (similar to the catholic church scandal recently in america) a statement about whether or not serfdom existed? - Owlmonkey (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
>"at the beginning of each practice one renews a vow to help, support, and labor for the benefit of others."
Oh well, that'll be Ok then... ;-)
>how is sexual abuse ... a statement about whether or not serfdom existed?
well: droit de seigneur was not consensual, and was only possible in the more extreme forms of feudalism, where the lord was regarded as actually owning the serf's body. Droit de seigneur was a property right intrinsic to extreme forms of feudalism (and to slavery), whereas paedophile priests may have been all too common, but are not intrinsic to Catholicism.
Clearly if a lord occasionally crept down the back stairs, then that has little meaning for characterizing the relations existing in a society. But if it was widely accepted that sexual services were a usual part of domestic service, that indicates a property right over the body, rather than a contractual master/servant relationship - which was why I was asking if anyone had any sources on this...
Similarly for the tantric rites, if an adult female Dharma student thought that by participating voluntarily she was developing spiritually, then that has no relevance for this debate. If 12 year old serfs frequently were coerced to participate then it has. It depends on age, volition and whether the practice was endemic. As to how one could get witnesses, presumably peasant girls who were unwillingly abused (if such existed) in the 40's and 50's would have been encouraged by the PRC to write accounts. If such accounts existed they could have been falsified of course. But if no such accounts exist then probably the practice didn't exist, or was voluntary.

--Jomellon (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Well if we find sources that detail cultural expectations of sexual service in some form, then let's talk about it. But if sexual service or abuse was really widespread then I suspect we would have heard about it in the sources already mentioned. In the Goldstein and Miller debate, for example, it would have come up probably? If it was a more recently discovery from interviews I'd also be surprised if we haven't found it already. - Owlmonkey (talk) 01:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy/Archive_1&oldid=232191076"