Just as the Western media has been “roaring” about the human rights conditions in China and Tibet in the past few months, two important voices have been muted: What do the Tibetan people think of the religious situation and Communist Party’s policy, and how do the majority of Chinese citizens respond to Western reports of Tibetan riots?
They are not happy either, but for different reasons.
The Tibetan people I met back in China, who are now involved in small businesses in coastal cities, are mostly unsatisfied with the fact that the government transports natural gas and oil to coastal China, which leaves West China’s standard of living far less hospitable than that of East China. But Tibetans don’t think the Dalai Lama can do better. Tibetans had been enslaved and suffered in serfdom since before their annexation to Communist China in 1951; the religiously-based lifestyle has barely changed since Buddhism was introduced to Tibet in 175 C.E., and has not helped its emergence into global economic discourse.
And why are the Chinese not in agreement with the major Western media’s stories? Despite hints of “pride and prejudice” existent in every culture that make outside criticism of domestic issues “unpleasant” to Chinese citizens, the Western media is not speaking in “Chinese.” When general facts and responsible resolutions are not suggested in articles critical of Chinese policies, CNN has basically done nothing but say, “You suck,” to the Chinese. People might have different expectations for human rights, and different progressions according to different social realities and cultural backgrounds. The issue will not be solved by simply saying “Free Tibet” from China, since the sole economic and emergency support for Tibet has depended on the connections made with other areas of China.
What’s more, there’s a big controversy about the reports from CNN.com on the recent riot in the Tibetan area. Overwhelming numbers of facts have sided against CNN’s analysis of the “real evil” in this play. The real facts in China suggest that Tibetan monks initiated the riots simply because religions have been losing influence since the Communist Party opened Tibet to the outside world with the Qingzang railroad and education aid programs. This all started with the burning of shops and violence caused by these same monks, but Western media only covers the accounts of the Chinese government jailing the responsible monks.
In a country with so many layers of history, ideology and policy, it’s hard to say which shade of gray is fairer. But it is obvious to the Chinese that at the very least, the situation has been brought about by the actions of the monks, and nothing is as simple as the Western media makes it out to be.
The New York Times isn’t sold in Beijing yet, so it’s more than reasonable for the writers to use Western views in their analysis of international affairs to appeal to American readers. While Western media is generally concerned with the principle of freedom of the press, the Chinese respond more to logic and compromise if the final reports seem too drastic.
What gives me the chills is that everything happens naturally, since the U.S. media appeals to mostly American readers from their side of things, and the countries commented upon always have another story to tell.
It’s such a pity if the most dynamic voice of human rights in the world remains this way, even as it stresses the issues without the other side of the story.
While the world is not yet flat, the language is different and ideologies put people on different sides of “pride and prejudice” sentiments. We are still in one world, where people share basic concerns and are related in one way or another. I therefore believe it is worthwhile to work toward effective communication between Asia and the Western media.