|
The serfdom in Tibet controversy rests on both a political and an academic debate. In the political debate, Chinese sources claim moral authority for governing Tibet, based on narratives that portray Tibet as a "feudal serfdom" and a "hell on earth" prior to the invasion of Tibet in 1950.〔Powers 2004, pg. 122〕 Tibetologists have presented a range of opinions as to the accuracy of this characterization, and there continues to be a lack of consensus on the topic. Accusations of the existence of a variety of unfree labour have been a recurrent theme, covering periods both before and after the Chinese takeover. Supporters of the Chinese position highlight statements by the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) that, prior to 1959, 95% of Tibetans lived in 'feudal serfdom',〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=White Paper on Tibet's March Forward )〕 and cite cases of abuse and cruelty in the traditional Tibetan system.〔Goldstein 1997, p.56〕 Human rights organizations and supporters of the Free Tibet movement have highlighted reports of Communist-run forced labour camps in the region〔Amnesty International, "Peoples' () Republic of China: Repression in Tibet, 1987-1992"〕 and point out the efforts made by the Tibetan authorities to modernise the country and improve conditions in Tibet in the first half of the 20th Century. In the academic debate of the 'Serfdom in Tibet' controversy, the nature of serfdom and its applicability to Eastern societies is contested amongst academics. Tibetologist Melvyn Goldstein wrote in 1971 that "Tibet was characterized by a form of institutionalized inequality that can be called pervasive serfdom".〔 However many academics have questioned the applicability of the concept to Tibet, a recent example being Heidi Fjeld who in 2003 argued that feudalism and the use of the term 'serf' was misleading in relation to the social system of Tibet and instead described it as "a caste-like social hierarchy". == Tibet: region or regions? == The term "Serfdom in Tibet" can be misleading since Tibet cannot simply be defined as one political entity or social system; its political and socio-economic structures having varied greatly over time and between sub-districts. Although the central leadership in Lhasa had authority for various periods this did not imply the kind of political control of modern Western states. According to Luciano Petech, in the 18th Century CE "K'ams () was practically independent of Lhasa under its great lamas".〔Petech 1973, pp. 51, 98〕 In the 1940s the Kuomintang Muslim warlord Ma Bufang ruled Qinghai province. Even the definition of Tibet has been contested with a map of competing claims identifying six distinct types of Tibetan region claimed by various entities. Generally, the government of the PRC limits Tibet to the area it has designated the Tibet Autonomous Region, consisting of the provinces of Ü and Tsang; whereas the Tibetan government in exile claims that other ethnically Tibetan areas to the east also belong to Tibet.〔Powers 2004, pg. 163〕 Scholarship frequently represents a limited survey, restricted to the central region of Tibet and may not accurately represent the whole of cultural Tibet or all Tibetan speaking peoples. Discussing the social structure of Tibet inevitably leads to difficulties with defining terms. Not only may serf and feudalism be Western terms inappropriate for Asian use but the geography and peoples of Tibet vary according to interpreter. The lack of agreement of the various sides as to terminology highlights that the 'Serfdom in Tibet' controversy is a politicised debate, with the term 'feudal serfdom' largely being used by the People's Republic of China as a justification for their taking control in Tibet. According to the PRC: ...there was a historically imperative need for the progress of Tibetan society and the welfare of the Tibetan people to expel the imperialists and shake off the yoke of feudal serfdom. The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought hope for the deeply distressed Tibetan people. In conforming to the law of historical development and the interests of the Tibetan people, the Central People's Government worked actively to bring about Tibet's peaceful liberation. After that, important policies and measures were adopted for Tibet's Democratic Reform, regional autonomy, large-scale modernization and reform and opening-up. However, the Tibetan government in exile responds:
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Serfdom in Tibet controversy」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|