Tibet Still Tibetan

The Economist [subscription link] has an article on the persistence of the Tibetan identity inside Tibet, despite decades of Chinese occupation and the expansion of China’s economy into Tibet. Of note from the article:

IT WAS an odd remark to come from a Chinese government official. Instead of flaunting the 13.2% growth that his autonomous region reportedly achieved in 2006, he was openly contemptuous of the calculations: “The officials tell us what incomes Beijing wants us to report and then we just have to report those numbers, even though there are farmers earning far less.” Worse, he has views on the limits of Chinese sovereignty. “Highest this in China, highest that in China,” he says, in a caustic imitation of Chinese tour guides. “This,” he declares, a hand sweeping out towards the mountain-circled horizon, “is not China. This is Tibet.”

He may work for the Chinese government, but he is an ethnic Tibetan and, like many others, he is intransigently opposed to all things Chinese. His motives in working for the party are purely mercenary: “It’s the highest paying job I can get.” He also admits that he would like to visit India to see the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader. But, for now, he must earn money.

His is a common tale in modern Tibet: even as they take advantage of some of the economic opportunities Chinese rule has brought, many Tibetans remain staunchly proud of their own culture. This belies Chinese propaganda portraying supporters of the Dalai Lama and Tibetan separatism as a dwindling minority.
…
Many of those who do not risk the journey to India work hard at preserving their Tibetan heritage. One mother says that she insists that her daughter learn Tibetan, and that many others do the same. “Chinese is important for work but Tibetan is who we are. If you come back to Lhasa in ten years, you’ll see many more people speaking Chinese. But they would still be Tibetan.”

Such ideas pose no immediate security threat to China. But their persistence in the face of genuine danger highlights the limitations of Chinese rule. China has, through force, won reluctant submission. Acceptance, however, cannot be bought.

The economic changes China has forced upon Tibet are not enough, in and of themselves, to destroy Tibetan culture nor Tibetans’ will to keep their culture alive. But that is not to say that Chinese policies of population transfer, resources extraction, Hanification, and Chinese-language secondary school education aren’t in place with the intention of limiting the chances of Tibetan culture surviving the ongoing occupation. Just because China has not succeeded in killing the Tibetan spirit does not mean they will cease to try.

Thanks to reader NT for pointing out this piece.