In recent months, Western news media and human rights groups have focused attention on restrictions limiting Internet access in the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to websites on sensitive topics, including most independently produced information on Tibet 1. But there has been little coverage of the other side of the issue: if information produced outside the PRC is blocked, what information is made available in Chinese, within the PRC?
For information about Tibet, this question can to some extent be answered by examining the portrayal of Tibet and Tibetans in Chinese-language websites run by PRC government authorities and associated entities, aimed primarily at Chinese speakers within the PRC. In recent years the Chinese government has built a network of portals that together attempt to provide a fully controlled portrayal of Tibet in Chinese terms. A growing number of websites sponsored by local governments in Tibetan areas supplement this portrayal with information that is more varied and more locally focused, supporting government policy while also offering a somewhat more nuanced picture of Tibetan culture than that offered by central government websites (and one which does not pretend to be authoritative, objective, or complete).
Overt control of the structure of information delivery is buttressed by implicit controls: even as they purport to represent a Tibetan autonomous area, or the Tibet Autonomous Region (TAR), most of the sites reviewed here present Tibet and Tibetan culture from a Chinese perspective. The websites are, with very few exceptions, offered only in Chinese, they draw primarily on Chinese sources, they examine how China interacted with a particular people or in a particular area and they describe the history of a place in Chinese terms. They build on existing, and not unambiguous, Chinese cultural perceptions of Tibet as a wilderness and a ‘backward’ place, but also as a colourful, exotic one, and they emphasise Tibetans’ cultural difference. The few exceptions that occur suggest that there is some awareness of a Tibetan culture that is worthy of being evaluated on its own terms, rather than exclusively from a Chinese perspective. But taken as a whole, the viewpoint presented strengthens further the government’s explicit control of information, bringing even seemingly objective ‘facts’ about Tibetan culture and history in line with the Chinese official portrayal of Tibet as an inseparable part of the Chinese nation.
Note: All of the sites discussed below use the term ‘Tibet’ (occasionally ‘China’s Tibet’) to refer just to the area within the TAR. Areas with majority Tibetan populations in the surrounding provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, and Sichuan provinces are termed ‘autonomous Tibetan nationality’ areas. Some websites focus on both the TAR and ‘autonomous Tibetan nationality’ areas, while others include information only on a particular sub-area. But all websites take pains to distinguish between the two administrative jurisdictions to avoid any hint of promoting a ‘greater Tibet’ that would include all areas with Tibetan majority populations within the boundaries of the PRC. To avoid confusion, in this report these terms are defined as follows: the province of Tibet as outlined on PRC maps is referred to as ‘the TAR’; Tibetan regions outside the TAR are referred to as ‘Tibetan autonomous regions’; and ‘Tibet’ refers to the entire area in which Tibetans form a majority of the population (including both the TAR and all Tibetan autonomous regions).
Overt control of information – structure of online information distribution
Network of central and provincial-level sites
Over the past three years, probably in response to an internal government directive, an interlocking network of websites focussing on the TAR – and offering some additional information on Tibetan autonomous regions – has emerged. These sites provide information on culture and related areas, investment and tourism; are published primarily in Chinese (very few have English-language pages, and only one offers Tibetan content); and are sponsored by PRC central or provincial-level government entities. These sites often link to each other, and almost always state in their ‘About the Site’ section that their goal is to provide “a complete, objective window onto Tibet, for China and the world.” Outside of this ring of sites, local websites in the TAR and Tibetan areas in Sichuan have emerged. These sites supplement the central- and provincial-government websites’ portrayal of Tibet with information that is more varied and more locally focused, supporting government policy while also offering a somewhat more nuanced picture of Tibetan culture that does not pretend to be authoritative, objective or complete; these are discussed in the next section.
Among the sites about Tibet produced by PRC central and TAR government entities, by far the most important is Tibetinfor (‘China Tibet Information Centre’, zhongguo xizang xinxi zhongxin, www.tibetinfor.com.cn). Other similar sites include Tibetinfo (‘Tibet Information Web’, xizang xinxi wang, www.tibetinfo.com.cn), and TibetOnline (xizang zaixian, www.tibetonline.net), as well as the development/investment portal TibetGuide (xizang zhinan, www.tibetguide.com.cn) and the quasi-academic site China Tibetology Research Centre (zhongguo zangxue yanjiu zhongxin, www.tibetology.com.cn). The discussion below focuses on Tibetinfor, as its content is representative of that found on the other sites, referring to the other sites only when their content provides pertinent additional evidence.
All of these sites explain their goals as providing authoritative information about Tibetan culture, society and economy, and they do so through a combination of news updates (taken directly from China’s official news services), encyclopaedia-style overviews of aspects of Tibetan culture, society and economy, as well as ‘special reports’ on topics that coincide with particular government policy goals (such as the Qinghai-Tibet railway, Tibetan language: conservation and progress, and Lhasa old city rebuilding and renovation 2). The wording they use to express these goals suggests that they – and in particular Tibetinfor – aim to offer a comprehensive, authoritative portrayal of Tibet, so that their audiences need look no further for information. This presentation is reinforced by the significant extent of cross-linking among these sites and from other government-controlled sites to Tibetinfor.
Tibetinfor is the centrepiece of the PRC central government’s strategy of presenting an all-encompassing, ostensibly objective and authoritative picture of Tibet for Chinese-speaking audiences. It serves both as the main information distribution node in the network of PRC Chinese-language sites about Tibet, and as a link in the government’s network of information sites about sensitive issues, including Taiwan and human rights. Tibetinfor is the most comprehensive example of its kind, with an overwhelming amount of information, and is the Tibet-related site most frequently linked-to by other central government-sponsored sites. However, sites not connected with the central or Tibet provincial government do not link to it, suggesting that government policy on Tibet does not require Tibet-related websites to link to Tibetinfor (or that the requirement, if it exists, is not being enforced).
The Chinese version of Tibetinfor’s ‘About the Site’ section (www.tibetinfor.com.cn/aboutus/ jianjie.htm) set the tone for the site: “Tibetinfor … compiles Tibet-related information while displaying the true Tibet to the world via the Web….” Further down the page, Tibetinfor’s principal aims are listed as follows: “to introduce Tibet to the outside world, assist in the construction of Tibet through information services; objectively and completely introduce and open up [before the audience’s eyes] Tibet’s history and current conditions.”
Tibetinfor provides most of its content in Chinese, but also offers a set of English and Tibetan pages; the content of the three sites is not identical, although this is not made explicit on the site. Tibetinfor’s English site is much smaller than its Chinese version, suggesting that its information – and by implication the attempt to control/shape the portrayal of Tibet – may be aimed primarily at Chinese speakers.
In fact, the Chinese and English versions of Tibetinfor appear to be aimed at quite different audiences and provide content to suit. The English version states that it “is a comprehensive and leading Internet media focusing specially for Tibet, a mystery on the ‘Roof of the World’ [sic]”, but in fact provides only supplemental, superficial information intended to reinforce the PRC government’s official line and combat independent information distribution on Tibet. Its target audience includes Western investors, tourists and other individuals interested in Tibet in a general way. In contrast, the Chinese version both explicitly (in the ‘About Us’ text) and in practice (through the massive and still growing amount of content available on the site) attempts to provide an all-encompassing source of information oriented at educated PRC citizens (non-academics or potential tourists with a deep interest in the subject) who want detailed, in-depth information about Tibet. Its target audience also includes potential investors in the region. Despite these differences of audience, scope and content, throughout both versions there is consistent emphasis on the official PRC line on Tibet: its culture is an important part of China’s heritage, its territory has been part of or associated with China for thousands of years and its people have been one of China’s nationalities since ancient times.
The content provided on Tibetan religions clearly illustrates these differences. The content in English on the topic of religion is included under the sub-heading ‘Culture’, and discusses only general Buddhism-related topics such as ‘About Tibetan Buddhism’, ‘Monastery’, ‘Buddhist Activities and Monastery Life’, ‘Religions Story and Classic [sic]’, and ‘Religions Today’. In contrast, the Chinese version offers a main section on religion, with the following subsections (each with three to seven subpages) that range much more widely than the English version: ‘Outline of Religion’, ‘Primitive Religions’ (yuanshi zongjiao), ‘Native’ Religion’ (benjiao), ‘Tibetan Buddhism’, ‘Other Religions’, ‘[Buddhist] Classics, Ancient Books and Records’, ‘Religious Taboos’, ‘Religion Dictionary’, ‘Religious Festivals and Celebrations’, ‘Contemporary Religion’, and ‘Chronology of Tibetan Religion’. This is in line with the standard practice among the authorities to minimise the importance of Buddhism in Tibetan culture and emphasise aspects of the Tibetan folk-culture perceived as non- or pre-Buddhist. Within the English version’s religion subsection, the available texts (reproducing roughly 10-20% of the Chinese version’s total content) appear to be direct translations of the Chinese version of the corresponding pages, as in the description of the Labrang temple in Sangchu, Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, (Chin: Xiahe, Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture)
(www.tibetinfor.com.cn/english/culture/religion/monastery/monastery_02_lab.htm;
compare www.tibetinfor.com.cn/zongjiao/zongj200241791124.htm).
Reinforcing the argument that the English and Chinese versions of the site target very different audiences and in practice have very different goals, some of the English site content differs significantly from the Chinese version of the same content area, and receives very different placement and emphasis within the site’s structure. For instance, the essay “Prison on the Plateau” (www.tibetinfor.com/tibetzt/prison_en/jian_en.html) is linked to from the main column of the English version home page, and purports to reveal the truth about conditions in Tibetan prisons. A corresponding essay in the Chinese version “Tibetan Prisons” (www.tibetinfor.com.cn/zt/prison/jianyu.htm) is linked to only from a box of ‘hot topics’ in a sidebar on an internal page on government and law. The English version is clearly an attempt to rebut the accusations of Western human rights organisations about the internationally criticised conditions in Tibetan prisons and instead emphasises the humaneness of prison conditions, the alleged horrors of pre-1949 Tibetan prisons, etc. In contrast, the Chinese version attempts to provide an in-depth ‘factual’ overview of the Chinese prison system as written from the official PRC point of view, with Tibetan prisons as the main focus within the overview, and links to pages on “America’s Prisons” and “International Prisons”, but not to the English version of the same page.
Tibetinfor reinforces its legitimacy as the authoritative site on Tibet for Chinese-speaking visitors by describing at length its ongoing cooperation projects with other Tibet-related entities in China: “As it has to date, going forward Tibetinfor will engage in and develop a variety of forms of cooperation with the government of the TAR, local news media offices, the TAR tourist bureau, the All-China Gesar leading work group office, China’s Tibetology Research Centre as well as many other work units whose work involves Tibet.”
The epistemological frame within which Tibetinfor presents information also reinforces its stance as an objective, authoritative source of information on things Tibetan. For example, the introduction to the Tibetology section of the Tibetinfor site explains that, “in China, Tibetan studies have a long history. Depending on the period, Tibetan studies have focused on many different spheres of Tibet – it’s a comprehensive, scientific [discipline]. [Tibetan studies in China] are now developing and becoming more mature, and even becoming the focus of international attention.” (www.tibetinfor.com.cn/zangxue/menu_zxgl.htm)
Unlike the other sites in this category, Tibetinfor offers information not only on the TAR but also on other Tibetan autonomous areas, again reinforcing its claim to provide authoritative, all-encompassing information. This information tends to reinforce the explicit government message concerning Chinese control over Tibet and Tibetan areas, as in the section covering the creation of administrative divisions and structures in the TAR and Tibetan areas between 1911 and 1949 (www.tibetinfor.com/snowland/geography/quhua/doc/geo008.htm). Tibetinfor also offers information on areas outside of Tibet that bears a more indirect political message, such as the discussion of the temples of the ‘native’ local religion in Qinghai province (qinghai de benjiao siyuan, www.tibetinfor.com.cn/zongjiao/zongj2002415132913.htm), or the overview of Tibetan Buddhism temples, with examples drawn from the TAR and Tibet Autonomous Regions (www.tibetinfor.com.cn/zongjiao/menu_fj_sy.htm).
Official news sites
Beyond the websites sponsored by central and TAR governments, there are several official PRC Chinese-language news sites that focus exclusively on Tibet or include Tibet as a main sub-area of coverage. Most significant among them are Xinhua Tibet (www.xizang.xinhua.org), China Tibet News (www.chinatibetnews.com), and China West News (www.chinawestnews.net). Although not necessarily directly controlled by the central government, these news sites provide information in support of and in connection with government policies, in particular the Go West development policy begun in 2000.
These sites offer news coverage that reflects the high priority current government policy places on economic development in the western regions of China in general, political control by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) apparatus, social development and modernization, and discussions of Tibetan culture and religion (primarily in light of their appeal to potential tourists). For example, in January 2003, Xinhua Tibet published a total of 101 articles in its online edition (article archive located at www.xz.xinhuanet.com/xizangyaowen); of these there were 33 articles about the development of the Tibetan economy, 31 articles relating to politics in the TAR and elsewhere in China, 25 articles on social development and modernization, and 12 articles on culture. Given the emphasis that PRC President Hu Jintao is placing on measures to alleviate poverty and spread the benefits of China’s economic development to the country’s Western regions, it seems safe to assume that these media websites will continue to focus on these areas, reinforcing and elaborating the policies staked out in the central and TAR-government websites discussed above.
Local government and quasi-local entities
Beyond the interlocking network of central and provincial government sites, there are other sites sponsored by local government or quasi-government entities that cover subsections of the TAR or the Tibetan autonomous prefectures within Sichuan province 3. Unlike the central and provincial-level sites discussed above, these sites rarely link to each other, provide more extensive (and occasionally more engaging) information, and do not purport to serve as authoritative, complete sources of information. Some provincial-level sites – most prominently Tibet-web (xizang wang, www.tibet-web.com) – also provide more independent information, albeit clearly within official policy on Tibet.
In these sites the central government’s socio-economic development policy for the Western regions – which urges a focus on tourism, resource extraction, and immigration-fuelled development – clearly influences what information is delivered. All sites work within the official CCP line on Go West development goals and focus (and strictly follow the division between the TAR and non-TAR Tibetan regions). This is seen most clearly in the emergence of the sites themselves, (although most do not provide ‘About the Site’ areas explaining their origins), in regions whose main reason for having a website is presumably to provide tourist information and attract investors, and in the news sites. It is also underscored by the categories of information that the portals present – all of them prominently feature tourism, socio-economic development and investment – and in the proliferation of Go West-related sites sponsored by organisations based in the Western region.
The most significant sites in this category are those sponsored and developed by prefectural-level governments and associated entities in the TAR and in Tibetan-majority areas in Sichuan province. In addition to Naqu Online (naqu zaixian, www.naqu.net) of Nagchu prefecture, (Chin: Nagqu) TAR, in Sichuan province the Ngaba Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture (Chin: Aba) has developed an extensive informational website, Aba Information Portal (aba xinxi gang, www.aba.net.cn). There are two websites offering a mix of tourist and more general information on the Kardze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, (Chin: Ganzi) GanziWeb (ganzi wang, www.gzznet.com) and KangbaWeb (kangba wang, www.kangba.com). All of these sites offer some more local information, most of it aimed at tourists, and trumpet local economic progress. But whether by design or omission, they do not display the explicit concern to provide an objective, complete picture of Tibet and Tibetans that is evinced by the central- and provincial-government sites covering Tibet.
Also noteworthy in this regard is Tibet-web, sponsored by a local quasi-governmental entity in Lhasa, the Tibet Qomolangma Literature and Art Foundation (xizang zhumolangma wenxue yishu jijinhui). The ‘About the Site’ page explains that Tibet-web is “a rich and authoritative comprehensive cultural website that [from its position] on Tibetan soil portrays Tibet’s great cultural range.” The same text goes on to explain that Tibet-web intends to provide cultural and artistic as well as natural science information, aiming both to enable visitors to get to know Tibet and to provide a ‘shortcut’ to people interested in understanding Tibet more deeply and conducting systematic research. Tibet-web links to standard news websites and other Tibet-related sites, but does not refer to the four central/provincial government portals, although it is linked to from Tibetinfor’s home page. It also makes no explicit claim to be the authoritative, objective source of information on Tibet.
Like Tibetinfor, but unlike the rest of the websites in this category, Tibet-web provides information on the TAR and on Tibetan autonomous areas in other provinces and carefully labels them by province. Thus, Tibet-web offers a lengthy essay on “Sichuan Aba and Ganzi Area’s High-Carved Buildings” (gaodiao jianzhu) within its popular culture area (www.tibet-web.com/minjian/01minju/02.htm), and an in-depth article on the history of tea in Tibet, “A Survey of Tibetan Nationality Tea Culture” that covers both the TAR (abbreviated “Tibet”) and “Tibetan areas throughout the rest of the country”, and is notable also for its reliance on Tibetan-language sources (www.tibet-web.com/minjian/03yinshi/04gaiyao.htm).
Implicit control of information
Behind the explicit control of the structure of information delivery outlined above lies the implicit control and shaping of the portrayal of Tibet in which all of the reviewed sites engage. Most striking is the nearly omnipresent use of the Chinese perspective when presenting Tibet and Tibet-related topics. To illustrate this point, it is worth taking a brief look at the way these sites present some aspects of TAR/Tibetan local history and Tibetan culture, and at the images the sites offer either to accompany text or as part of online photo galleries or advertising.
Although this is not uniformly the case, for the most part, PRC Chinese-language websites on Tibet are being used to rewrite and replace indigenous Tibetan historiography with a Chinese perspective on that history. This is accomplished through comments on the improvements successive Chinese governments have brought about in Tibet and Tibetan areas, the use of a primarily Chinese perspective or framework from which to evaluate developments in the history of Tibetan-majority areas and discussions of the length and substance of common Tibetan and Chinese history. The historical accounts detailed below are also noteworthy for the gaps in their chronologies. In general, the accounts mention dates when the government of China was engaged in activities aimed at (re-)imposing control on the portion of Tibet in question (i.e. the periods during which the regions in question were effectively not under imperial or central administration); time periods for which there are no dates listed are those when Chinese control is taken for granted and therefore presumably not worthy of emphasis. The following is a selection of a few representative citations from the very large body of evidence on this topic, drawn primarily from the sites discussed above.
The Aba Information Portal portrays the history of the Tibetan-majority Ngaba area in terms of the development of Chinese influence and therefore progress (www.aba.net.cn/aba_lswh/lswh_index.htm). After beginning with a discussion of the area’s prehistorical record, it states that “since the Qin dynasty (221 BC), the range of the central [Chinese] imperial control continually expanded and grew stronger, and the advanced civilization greatly penetrated, enabling this area to make a step towards prosperity.” The section concludes by naming activities of post-Han dynasties that “furthered the social and economic progress of this region.” Within the same site, the section on cultural relics begins with following statement: “The Ngaba area is extremely rich in historical and cultural relics. As proven by archaeological cultural relics, the area had very close relations with other parts of the Motherland.” The rest of the article does not directly refer to the ‘Chinese Motherland’ (although it mentions developing relations with the Western areas of the Chinese empire as part of the evolution of the local culture) but instead offers a wandering overview of the history of the area based on Chinese sources (www.aba.net.cn/zzwh/zzwh_whyw.htm). It is worth noting in passing that there are Tibetan (primarily religious) sources covering this and the other historical events discussed in these websites, but the accounts they provide of these events are, as one could expect, very different.
Other sites with similar accounts include the subsection on the Malho Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, (Chin: Huangnan) (Huangnan zangzu zizhizhou – a page titled “Local Progress”) within the Qinghai provincial government website (www.qhei.gov.cn/qhgd/dqfz_hnz.htm), and the NaquWeb presentation of local historical evolution (lishi yan’ge, www.naqu.net/html/history02.asp). The latter plagiarises in its entirety the Tibetinfor text on the Nagchu region, which begins its discussion of Nagchu’s historical evolution with a brief overview of the region as presented in Tibetan historical records (quoted in Chinese), mentioning the tribes who lived in the area, and the unification of the territory under what is termed the first Tibetan dynasty, the ‘Tufan dynasty’. The text then shifts to describing the area’s historical evolution from the Chinese perspective, using Chinese dynasties (Song, Qing) as temporal markers which are often totally irrelevant for the region: “After the Song dynasty, Nagqu … [and 3 other tribes] were called the Four Northern Tribes. In 1751, the Qing [Manchu] dynasty sent troops to put down the Zhu Er Mo Te Na Mu Za Lei incident, and drew up the 13-Point Regulations to deal with the remaining problems, instituting significant reforms in the Tibetan local administration system.” After discussing the local administrative structure that the Qing established in Nagchu under the 13-Point regulations, the text jumps to 1942, where it continues with the official PRC version of subsequent Tibetan history (www.tibetinfor.com.cn/zt/naqu/menu.htm). The text does not mention the Qing invasion of Tibet in 1720 and Qing military and intelligence activities in Tibet in the 1720s and 1730s, or any events between 1751 and 1942.
NaquWeb’s essay on the historical origins of the area provides additional detail on the evolution of local administrative structures between 1725 and 1907, ostensibly confirming the existence of Qing rule over the area: “In 1725, the Qing government erected the [position of] Grand Minister Superintendent of Qinghai (qinghai banshi dachen) 4, and appointed the twelfth King of Huo Er, She Jia Ji Yin as the Commandant (zongguan) over the 39 peoples [structure created in Northern Tibet during the Mongol period], directly under the control of the Court of Colonial Affairs (lifan yuan) Native Affairs Office (yiqing yamen). In 1728, the Qing court established the Office of the Grand Minister Resident of Tibet (zhu zang dachen banshi yamen) in Lhasa. In 1731, the boundaries between Qing[hai] and [Xi]zang [Tibet] were demarcated, and the Gula and Shansheng – South and North Luzhu tribes – were placed under the authority of the Grand Minister Resident of Tibet and the Grand Minister Superintendent of Qinghai, respectively. The 39 peoples were placed under the direct authority of the Grand Minister Resident of Tibet …Up through 1907, there were in all eight [additional] Kings of Huo Er; they all had their appointments conferred by the Qing government, and some were also awarded peacock feathers to wear on their hats [indicating their rank within the Qing bureaucracy].”
To create the perception of long-term Chinese influence in and governance of Tibet, Tibetinfor posits the idea of lengthy direct rule, and before that of a shared history that formed the basis for subsequent Chinese control of Tibet: “Tibetan areas have been under the jurisdiction of the central Chinese government for more than 700 years, and this historical relationship has a basis of more than 1300 years of positive political, economic, and cultural contacts between Han [Chinese] and Tibetans” (www.tibetinfor.com/snowland/geography/quhua/doc/geo008.htm). Other sites making similar arguments include the Southwest United Information Network (da xinan xinxi lianhe wang, www.sw.net.cn/xn-xizang.htm).
The Aba Information Portal makes the argument more explicit, presenting Tibetan culture solely within the framework of the Chinese multi-nationality nation. The site carefully constructs artificially separate identities for Tibetan and Qiang cultures, offering separate sections with many sub-categories covering various aspects of the two cultures, but argues that in the end, both are part of the Chinese nation: “[t]he Tibetan nationality is one of the long-standing members of the multi-nationality nation of China, and is scattered among Tibet, Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, Yunnan, and other provinces and areas, with an old history and culture.” (www.aba.net.cn/zzwh/zzwh_gyzz.htm) 5
Similarly, in its introduction to Qiang nationality culture the site explains, “[t]he Qiang nationality is one of the nationalities within the family of Chinese nationalities, all of which have a very long history. Currently [the Qiang] live in Mao, Wenchuan, and Li counties within the Aba prefecture, as well as some parts of the Songpan area.”
Both GanziWeb and KangbaWeb offer a general introduction to counties within the traditional Kham region (East Tibet). Both websites provide identical texts for each county introduction but do not cite the original source for the information. The discussion below provides links to pages within KangbaWeb; pages with identical content are also linked from the GanziWeb homepage (www.gzznet.com). Each introduction includes information on the county’s geography, the historical evolution of the county’s administrative structures, the origin of the county’s current name and substantial additional information presumably taken from the local county gazetteers.
As in the other sites reviewed, GanziWeb and KangbaWeb’s local administrative history overviews for the counties of Kham place the evolution of local government structures in Kham squarely within Chinese political and local administrative history, although they do not claim that Chinese rule brought socio-economic progress with it. Most of the county local administrative history overviews begin with an acknowledgment that “in ancient [pre-Han dynasty, 206 B.C. – 221 A.D.] times this was Qiang territory” (Gyezur county, (Chin: Jiulong,) www.kangba.com/web3/htdocs/xxlr1.asp?id=5211), or that “In ancient times this [area] was the pasture land for the Biyao tribe” (Payul county, (Chin: Baiyu) www.kangba.com/web3/htdocs/xxlr1.asp?id=5210). Those that do not (such as Sershul county ( Chinese: Shiqu), www.kangba.com/web3/htdocs/xxlr1.asp?id=5178) begin the narrative directly within the Chinese dynastic history framework: “Under the Sui dynasty [581-618], [Sershul county] was a subsidiary area.”
The overviews then explain the rest of each county’s local administrative history in purely Chinese terms. Each county is described as being part of the ‘Tufan’ kingdom under the Sui and Tang dynasties (618-907), and to some extent under the Song (960-1279). More detail on the titles and scope of local administrative structures is given beginning with the Mongol Yuan dynasty (1279-1368), but it is primarily in the Ming (1368-1644) and Manchu/Qing (1644-1911) dynasties, as well as the Republican (1911-1949) and post-1949 periods, that the accounts offer dates and details of Chinese administrative control in these areas.
The local administrative history provided for Dartsedo county (Chin: Kangding) (www.kangba.com/web3/htdocs/xxlr1.asp?id=5086) illustrates the extent to which local Tibetan socio-political development is subsumed within the Chinese administrative system:
“In ancient times [Dartsedo county] was Qiang territory. Under the Han [dynasty] it was under the jurisdiction of Chenli prefecture (chenli jun). Under the Sui [dynasty] it was within the Jialiang territory (jialiang di). Under the Tang [dynasty] the eastern and northern sections were … under the jurisdiction of Ya prefecture (yazhou); the Western area is recorded as [being] under [the jurisdiction of] Tufan [i.e. the Tibetan empire]. Under the Song [dynasty] this continued. The Yuan [Mongol dynasty] put in place the … [regional] Pacification Commission. The Ming [dynasty] carried on with the Yuan system, and in the 12th year of the Chongzhen reign (1639), (…) established a Construction Official (yingguan) at Muya. In the 42nd year of the reign of the Qing [Emperor] Kangxi (1701), after the Qing army had put down the rebellion of the [current] Muya Construction Official Chang Ce Ji Lie, [the Qing] again established the (…) Pacification Commission (xuanwei si), abbreviated ‘Ming Principal Aboriginal Office’ (ming zheng tusi). In the 11th year of the Yongzheng [Emperor’s reign] (1733) they put in place (…) the Jianlu Subprefecture (jianlu ting, ???), and set up a Subprefectural Magistrate (tongzhi). In the 29th year of the Guangxu [Emperor’s] reign (1908), [the status of the area] was raised to be an Independent Subprefecture (zhili ting), under the jurisdiction of Changdao [prefecture], and in the 34th year (1908) was changed into Kangding prefecture (kangding fu). In the second year of the Republic (1913), Kangding county was established, and placed under the jurisdiction of the [Si]chuan Border Special Administrative Area (chuanbian tebie xingzheng qu). In 1935 the route of the Long March of the Red Army crossed the county’s borders, establishing a soviet government at Jinchi and village soviet governments at Kongyu, Xinhe, Pengta, Sanhe, Maibeng, and Qianxi. In the 29th year of the Republic (1939) the Xikang [area] was made a province, with Kangding as the provincial capital. In 1950, [Dartsedo (Chin: Kangding) was] placed under the jurisdiction of the Tibetan Autonomous Area of Xikang province; Kangding was made the seat of the People’s Government of the Xikang Province Tibetan Autonomous Area. In 1955 [Dartsedo was] placed under the jurisdiction of the Ganzi Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture, Sichuan province, and Kangding remained the seat of the prefectural government. In 1990 the county had within its jurisdiction seven districts, 24 townships, one garrison, 240 villages, 254 small village groups, 10 village committees and 57 small residential groups.”
In contrast, the introductions to Tibet-web’s sections on Tibetan history and folk culture are somewhat more subtle in their account of Chinese and Tibetan history and do not draw the explicit conclusions of the sites just discussed, but still clearly place Tibetan history in a Chinese context. After stating that the “Tufan dynasty”, known by Tibetans and outside China as the Yarlung dynasty, brought Tibet into the era of historical progress in the sixth century AD, Tibet-web rehearses the build-up of contacts between China and Tibet by the dynasty: “during the Tang [there was] continuous warfare [and subsequent] peace between the Tang and [Tu]fan; during the Song [there was] trade in tea and horses, and trade-related dealings; … in the Qing [there was] assistance with the Gelugpa School [‘Yellow Hat Teaching’, huangjiao], and consolidation of the borders with military force; all the way to the rapid changes and shifting fortunes of the modern era and the present day.” (www.tibet-web.com/lishi/index.htm) Going one step further, the introduction to Tibet-web’s section on Tibetan folk culture does not make any references to China or Chinese culture at all, and instead speaks admiringly of its “unique and mystical character”, emphasizing its variety and richness (www.tibet-web.com/minjian/index.htm).
Nonetheless, Tibet-web clearly places the presentation of topics such as religious painting and sculpture within the Chinese historical framework, by relying on the Chinese dynastic dating system and referring to Chinese political events. Thus within the religion category there is a portfolio of Tibetan tangka art (www.tibet-web.com/zongjiao/xzgbao/tangka/tangka.htm), entitled “A Selection of Qing Dynasty Tangkas”. All of the images are labelled with a caption that begins with the tangka’s title followed by the notation ‘Qing dynasty’, as is customary when dating Chinese art. One of the image captions describe the styles of tangka art “during the Qing dynasty” (www.tibet-web.com/zongjiao/xzgbao/tangka/link/7.htm). Another caption mentions the Manchu/Qing emperor Qianlong’s decree concerning a particular tangka (www.tibet-web.com/zongjiao/xzgbao/tangka/link/3.htm). The wood carving section, entitled “A Selection of Sculptures from the [Chinese] Dynasties”, also dates all of the works displayed according to the Chinese dynasty during which they were produced.
The introduction to Tibet-web’s portfolio of images taken from illustrated Buddhist texts, entitled “A Selection of Tibetan Scripture Roll Illustration” (xizang jingjuan chatu jingxuan) again places the development of this printing form in a Chinese politico-religious context. The only dates cited in the multi-page introduction occur in connection with a mention of the Ming dynasty (1368-1644) emperor Yongle (r. 1403-1424): “The first woodblock printed Tibetan-language Gan Zhu Er (Tibetan classics Buddhist language section) was cut and printed in the [Chinese] hinterland. This is what history terms the ‘Yongle edition of the Gan Zhu Er’. In the eighth year of the Yongle reign (1410), the emperor sent a messenger with a decree ordering the Karmapa Living Buddha Yin Xie Ba (1384-1415) to come to Linggu temple in [the capital] Nanjing to serve as the general editor for the publication of the Gan Zhu Er, and it was then printed. The publication of this woodblock edition played a significant role [in enabling] the Tibetan area (zangqu) Buddhist culture’s far-reaching transmission, and its influence did not decline over time.” (www.tibet-web.com/zongjiao/zjys/newpage.htm)
China’s Tibet in Pictures
For the most part, the visual portrayal of Tibet via the online photo galleries, illustrations and advertising of the sites reviewed reflects the explicit and implicit control of information about Tibet presented above. The portrayal relies primarily on predictable tourism and development-oriented images, including landscapes, smiling figures in ethnic costumes, temples, scenes of modernization (roads, skyscrapers, etc.), and artificially posed scenes. There are of some exceptions to this generalization, even within Tibetinfor, but only Tibet-web’s portfolio offers a portrayal that is generally more nuanced (with the exception of some historical photos), with many images from everyday life and portraits that allow Tibetans to speak directly rather than through the prism of Chinese perceptions and expectations.
The discussion below also includes a number of banner advertisements taken from the reviewed sites. Banner advertising on these sites is noteworthy for the imposition of Chinese-language advertising and political slogans on unrelated images of Tibetan culture and scenery, and for the almost complete absence of Tibetan-language advertising. Even when Tibetan appears, the text is always coloured and located so as to subordinate and diminish its visual impact relative to the Chinese text.
The sites and their images discussed in this section are loosely arranged along a spectrum, with China.com.cn’s ‘Pictures from Tibet’ providing the most predictable tourist- and development-oriented images, and Tibet-web presenting the most nuanced, independent portfolio:-
China.com.cn
Tibet Guide
Tibetinfor
Naqu Online
Aba Information Portal
GanziWeb
KangbaWeb
Tibet-web
Notes
1.The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School has produced a report on Internet filtering in China, available at cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china. The Center also makes available an application for testing whether a particular site is blocked by the PRC authorities, at cyber.law.harvard.edu/filtering/china/test. See also the recent report on the limits to free expression in PRC online ‘chat rooms’ published by Reporters without Borders: “Living dangerously on the Net: Report on the censorship and surveillance of online forums”, www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=6793.
2 For more information on the latter two topics, see e.g. TIN News Update, “TAR’s Regulations on Tibetan Language unlikely to stop the growing influence of Chinese”, 30 January 2003, and TIN Special Report, “‘Rebuilding’ and ‘Renovation’ in Lhasa”, 10 September 2002.
3. The official website of Sichuan province, China Sichuan (www.sichuan.gov.cn), provides overview of government entities (from provincial to municipal), services, and related information, as well as a mixture of news from state media feeds and promotional information (aimed at tourists as well as investors). It also offers a directory listing websites provided by local government entities. The directories covering the Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures and the counties within list only the sites for the Kardze (Chin: Ganzi) and Ngaba (Chin: Aba) Tibetan Autonomous Prefectures discussed in the text here, and a tourism-oriented site for Dartsedo (Chin: Kangding) county (Kangding Express, kangding kuaiche, www.kdkc.net). The corresponding websites for Gansu and Qinghai do not provide directories with information on the Tibetan autonomous areas within their borders, but extensive web searches suggest that the local governments of these areas do not yet provide websites.
4.Translations of Chinese-language administrative and political terms follow Charles O. Hucker, A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China, Stanford: Stanford UP, 1985.
5.Ironically, towards the end of the Aba Information Portal’s introductory text on the Qiang nationality it is implicitly admitted that the term Qiang was previously also used to refer to Tibetans: “The word ‘qiang’ is an old nationality name in China, and was originally a general term used in ancient times by Han [Chinese to describe] the nomadic herder people living in the western part of the motherland. In ancient times the Qiang people were not just one nationality; and from the last years of the 4th century B.C. through the Song dynasty (960-1279), the many tribes, aboriginals, and nationalities of the Gan[su] and Qing[hai] areas of China’s Northwest, these were what in history were generally designated as the ‘Qiang’ nationality.” (www.aba.net.cn/qiangs/aboutqiangs.htm)
