First there was the post on Making Chutney, talking about the feudal and oppressive governance in pre-communist occupied Tibet.  I was very happy to see a UU presenting the other perspective and recognizing an "anti-Chinese" sentiment in the Western response. But during the discussion within the comments, I became a little uncomfortable.  Understanding that Tibet was a theocracy ruled by the lamas should not then automatically become, "Tibetans are better off now under the communists."  That runs the danger of us not responding to oppression that continues to exist.

Second, a member of A/PIC posted a link to a YouTube video that gave the Chinese side of the story.  In the discussion that followed, someone brought up the very real possibility that some UUs will probably try to present this as an Action of Immediate Witness (AIW).  The idea of a UU statement that mirrors Hollywood, the Western media, and your standard, white "free-Tibet" protesters turns my stomach.  I'm not sure that I could stay a UU if that happened. 

I am still wrestling with how to respond to this.  Every time I argue with someone who makes the claim, "the Chinese are torturing Tibetan nuns!!" I run the risk of sounding like I condone these acts of oppression or am arguing for complacency.  I do not and am not. 

So what is it that I am reacting against? 

1. People romanticizing Tibet as a completely peaceful land of smiling Buddhist monks.  I dislike it when China is romanticized too - it's just offensive.  They're not seeing people as real people.

2. The Western media and some people presenting the violence as the evil, cruel Chinese who just like to torture Tibetans for the fun of it versus the peaceful loving Tibetans.  Rightly or wrongly, the Chinese think that Tibet is part of China. The brutality displayed by the communist govt towards the Tibetans does not come from ethnic hatred mainly, but rather a) a brutality levied against anyone that it perceives as a threat, even Han, and b) ethnocentric paternalism and disregard for the value of Tibetan culture.

3. I can't help but think that many people (not all) are using what is a very legitimate concern in order to justify expression of their latent anti-Chinese bias.

Otoh, I don't want my need to defend China to convince anyone not to act for Tibet.  What disturbed me about the conversation in the comment area of Making Chutney is that, once it was acknowledged that Tibet used to be a feudal theocracy, the sentimant seemed to swing to the opposite extreme.  Tibetans=bad, therefore Chinese=good.  I honestly don't like that any more than Chinese=bad, Tibetans=good.  Surely we are able to grasp a more complex view of the situation.  Whether it's the Mongolians, or the Han, or the British, or the Tibetan aristocracy, the bottom line is that the Tibetan people have never been free. A well-crafted, informed, fair, and ultimately firm AIW bearing witness to the suffering in Tibet (and indeed the rest of China) would be completely appropriate.