「西藏农奴制」中共民族宣传叙事里的弥天大谎 Serfdom in Tibet｜The Greatest Lie in ethnic propaganda narrative fabricated by CCP
“西藏百万农奴解放纪念日”特刊：对中共长期关于“西藏农奴制”的捏造谎言进行合乎逻辑且有据可查的揭露，以还原历史真相。A well-reasoned and evidence-based exposé of the CCP’s fabricated lie about “Tibetan serfdom,” restoring the historical truth.
中共将每年3月28日定为“西藏百万农奴解放纪念日”，用作政治宣传的工具，并强迫境内藏人举行庆祝活动。许多藏人认为，这一纪念日正是针对流亡藏人每年3月10日纪念的“西藏抗暴日”而设立的。
The CCP designated March 28 as “Serfs’ Emancipation Day,” using it for political propaganda and forcing Tibetans inside Tibet to celebrate. Many Tibetans see it as a counter to March 10, Tibetan Uprising Day, commemorated by the exile community.
尽管中共宣称在1959年之后废除了“农奴制”并实施了“民主改革”，但根据十世班禅仁波切的《七万言书》，所谓“改革”期间实际发生了严重的人权灾难：大量藏人被错抓、错判，多人在狱中丧命；大量藏传佛教寺院被毁，僧侣被迫还俗；有些地区甚至爆发了严重饥荒，许多藏人因断粮而悲惨饿死，这在西藏历史上前所未有。直到今天，中共不仅没有对这一历史浩劫进行反省，反而无耻地将这段黑暗历史粉饰为“解放西藏农奴”的光辉历程。
While the CCP claims to have abolished “serfdom” and launched “democratic reforms” in Tibet after 1959, the 10th Panchen Lama’s 70,000 Character Petition reveals a darker reality: mass arrests, wrongful imprisonments, widespread deaths in custody, destruction of monasteries, forced defrocking of monks and nuns, and famine that killed many Tibetans. To this day, instead of reflecting on these tragedies, the CCP shamelessly glorifies this dark chapter as a noble act of liberation.
本文通过查阅历史文献，有理有据地揭露中共编造的弥天大谎，还原被掩盖的历史真相。
This article draws on historical sources to expose the CCP’s grand deception and restore the truth.
1.引言
如今提到西藏，许多人都持有这样的印象：“在黑暗的西藏旧社会大部分藏人都是农奴，是中国共产党和解放军进藏解放了百万被奴役的藏人。” 对中共统治有异议的藏人通常会面对这样的攻击：“你们是想回到旧西藏恢复农奴制吗？” 而年仅24岁就被迫流亡，毕生倡导慈悲与非暴力理念的达赖喇嘛尊者更是被抨击为“西藏最大的农奴主”......
这一切都离不开中共当局的反复灌输。根据中国国务院的发布：“在旧西藏，95%的藏族人民是世代农奴”[1]，中共官媒人民日报更是宣称“解放农奴是世界人权史上的光辉篇章”[2]。
然而，中共所宣传的一切真的有历史依据吗？
1. Introduction
Nowadays, whenever Tibet is mentioned, many people hold the impression: "In the dark ancient society of Tibet, most of the Tibetans were serfs/slaves. It was the CCP and the People's Liberation Army that freed millions of enslaved Tibetans." Tibetans who dissent from the CCP rule often face attacks like "Do you want to return to the old Tibet and restore serfdom?" Furthermore, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, who was forced into exile at the age of 24 and has dedicated his life to advocating for compassion and non-violence, is often denounced as "the largest slave owner in Tibet."
All of this is the result of the indoctrination by the CCP. According to a release by the Chinese State Council: "In old Tibet, 95% of the Tibetan people were hereditary serfs" [1]. The CCP’s state-controlled media, People's Daily, further claims that "the emancipation of Tibetan serfs is a glorious chapter in the history of human rights worldwide." [2].
However, is everything propagated by the CCP based on historical facts?
2.历史古籍遭篡改 百姓莫名变农奴
中共用以支撑“西藏农奴制”的主要历史证据来自于中共学者、中国社科院民族研究所所长牙含章的著作《达赖喇嘛传》。中共常常引用该书内容来支持自己对大藏区拥有统治权的立场。然而，前香港城市大学教授刘汉城经过大量查阅古籍发现了其中偷梁换柱的破绽[3]。
以下是此书中的内容节选：
根据后来《圣武记》记载的雍正十一年（公元一七三三年）五世达赖报理藩院的数字，当时全藏黄教寺庙共三千四百七十七所，喇嘛三十一万六千二百三十人（其中属于达赖方面的寺庙为三千一百五十所，喇嘛三十万〇二千五百六十人，属于班禅方面的寺庙为三百二十七所，喇嘛一万三千六百七十人）。属于寺庙的农奴共为十二万八千一百九十户（其中属于班禅方面的农奴为六千七百五十二户），每户如以五口计，属于寺院方面的农奴共约六十四万余人。
來源：牙含章，《达赖喇嘛传》，人民出版社，1984.09，页31
据牙含章所言，他引用了清朝时期的作家魏源的著作《圣武记》（成书于1840-1850年间）作为对于西藏农奴的历史记录。然而，让我们看看《圣武记》中相对应的原文：
達賴喇嘛所轄⋯喇嘛三十萬二千五百有奇，百姓十有二萬千四百三十八戶。班禪所轄⋯喇嘛［一］萬有三千七百有奇，百姓六千七百五士二戶。據乾隆二年理潘院造册。
来源：魏源，《圣武记》卷5〈西藏后记〉，中华书局出版，页226
我们可以直观地看出，牙含章直接把清代史著中提及西藏部分的百姓二字直接篡改为了农奴。更可笑的是，牙含章在其书中写道：“雍正十一年（公元一七三三年）五世达赖报理藩院……” 任何熟知西藏历史的人都知道，五世达赖喇嘛早于公元1682年就去世了。
我们不得不感叹中共权威藏学家编造谎言的滑稽和拙劣。
在藏文中，མི་སེར།（mi ser）一词原意是表示百姓或者平民。许多人不知道的是，在中国人民解放军刚刚入侵西藏时起草的一封文书中，“人民解放军”中的“人民”一词就被翻译成了藏文单词 མི་སེར། 。
后来中共为了合理化对西藏的统治，淡化自身外来侵略者的身份，把矛盾转移到藏人社会内部，刻意给这个原先表示平民百姓的单词新添加了“农奴”的政治化意涵。可以说，“农奴”是一个中共无中生有创造出来的政治概念
2. Historical Records Falsified: Commoners Baselessly Labeled as Serfs
The main historical evidence the CCP uses to support the claim of “serfdom in Tibet” comes from the book The Biographies of the Dalai Lamas by Ya Hanzhang, CCP’s Tibetologist and director of the Institute of Ethnology & Anthropology, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The CCP frequently cites this book to justify its claim of sovereignty over Tibet. However, former City University of Hong Kong professor Hon-Shiang Lau discovered significant inconsistencies through extensive examination of ancient texts[3].
Here is an excerpt from Ya Hanzhang’s book:
According to records in Shengwuji (The Record of Sacred Military Achievements), during the 11th year of Emperor Yongzheng’s reign (1733 AD), the fifth Dalai Lama reported to the Lifan Yuan (Qing government agency): at that time, there were 3,477 Gelugpa monasteries in Tibet with 316,230 lamas (among which 3,150 monasteries with 302,560 lamas belonged to the Dalai Lama’s side, and 327 monasteries with 13,670 lamas belonged to the Panchen Lama’s side). The number of serfs belonging to the monasteries was 128,190 households (6,752 households belonged to the Panchen Lama’s side). Assuming each household had five people, the total number of serfs belonging to the monasteries was approximately 640,000.
Source: Ya Hanzhang, The Biographies of the Dalai Lamas, People's Publishing House, September 1984, p. 31.
According to Ya Hanzhang, he cited Qing dynasty historian Wei Yuan's book Shengwuji (written between 1840-1850) as a historical record of Tibetan serfs. However, let's look at the corresponding original text in Shengwuji:
Under the jurisdiction of the Dalai Lama... there were more than 302,500 lamas and 128,438 households of commoners. Under the jurisdiction of the Panchen Lama... there were more than 13,700 lamas and 6,752 households of commoners. According to records compiled by the Lifan Yuan in the 2nd year of Emperor Qianlong’s reign.
Source: Wei Yuan, Shengwuji Vol. 5 "Later campaigns in Tibet", Zhonghua Book Company, p. 226.
We can see that Ya Hanzhang deliberately altered the term "commoners" in the Qing dynasty historical records to "serfs". Even more absurdly, Ya Hanzhang writes in his book: "In the year of 1733, the fifth Dalai Lama reported to the Lifan Yuan..." Anyone familiar with Tibetan history knows that the fifth Dalai Lama passed away in 1682. We cannot help but marvel at the absurdity and ridiculousness of the lies fabricated by CCP's so-called Tibetologist.
In Tibetan, the term མི་སེར། (mi ser) originally means "commoners" or "ordinary people". What many do not know is that in a document drafted when the People's Liberation Army first invaded Tibet, the term "People" in "People's Liberation Army" was translated into the Tibetan word མི་སེར།.
Later, the CCP, to legitimize its rule over Tibet and to downplay its identity as a foreign invader, shifted the conflict within Tibetan society and deliberately added a new political connotation of "serfs" to this term originally meaning "ordinary people". It can be said that "serfs" is a political concept created by the CCP out of thin air.
3. 旧西藏真正的社会结构是什么样的？
藏人的传统家园大藏区（བོད་ཆེན་པོ།) 包含卫藏(དབུས་གཙང་།)，安多(ཨ་མདོ།)和康区(ཁམས།)三个区域。其中，安多和康区的多数藏人世代以游牧为生，又何来“农奴”之说？
在1959年之前，西藏（主要是卫藏地区）噶厦政府统治下的社会结构主要由三个群体组成，即普通平民（མི་སེར།）、贵族（སྒེར་པ།）和僧侣（གྲྭ་པ།）。普通民众可以进一步细分为农民（ཞིང་པ།）和牧民（འབྲོག་པ།）。在这些民众中，农民占60%，牧民占30%，手工业者占10%。当时西藏的土地分别归西藏政府、寺院和私人所有，没有土地的农民通过租种土地来维持生计。不论是称西藏的土地所有者为领主还是地主，其与租户的关系与当时中国的情况并无不同。租种土地的农民每年上缴的租赋，仅占年收成的2%至4%，若遇天灾，还可以免缴。从本质上来说，这就是地主和佃户的关系，这种关系曾在中国和欧洲的封建社会中普遍存在。不可否认佃农与地主之间的确存在阶级不平等，但这与中共宣传的“农奴是会说话的牲畜”风马牛不相及[4]。
藏人作家安乐业指出[5]，中共在描述所谓“西藏农奴制度”的文字里做了很多手脚，最典型的例子就是所谓“农奴阶层”全都是藏文音译而非意译，如平民的三大阶级：“差巴”、“堆穷”、“郎生”等，藏语中的“差巴”（ཁྲལ་པ།）是“纳税人”，“堆穷”（དུད་ཆུང།）是“小户农工”，“郎生”（ནང་གཟན།）是“家里雇工”, 他们有机会成为管家或贵族代理人，通过自身努力在这三种阶级间流动。中共把农民歪曲成“农奴”，实在是别有用心的文字游戏。按照中共的逻辑，汉地的农民在封建时代也一样都是“农奴”。
而现在藏文中表示农奴的词བྲན་གཡོག是从汉文中再造翻译的。藏语中的བྲན་གཡོག本意是「小的仆人」，引申为属民、地位低的仆人等, 根本不具有中共根据马克思社会历史阶段论提出的类似在旧俄国存在的农奴制等的意思[6]。
3. What Was the Real Social Structure of Old Tibet?
The homeland of Tibetans since ancient times, the Greater Tibet (བོད་ཆེན་པོ།), comprises three regions: Ü-Tsang (དབུས་གཙང་།), Amdo (ཨ་མདོ།), and Kham (ཁམས།). Among these, the majority of Tibetans in Amdo and Kham have lived as nomads for generations, how then could there have been any concept of “serfs”?
Before 1959, the social structure under the Kashag government in Tibet (primarily the Ü-Tsang region) consisted of three main groups: lay people (མི་སེར།), lay nobility (སྒེར་པ།), and monks (གྲྭ་པ།). Lay people could be further divided into farmers (ཞིང་པ།) and nomads (འབྲོག་པ།). Among these, farmers accounted for 60%, nomads for 30%, and handicrafts men for 10%. The land in Tibet was owned by the Tibetan government, monasteries, and private individuals. Farmers without land sustained themselves by renting land. Whether the landowners were termed as lords or landlords, their relationship with the tenants was no different from that in China at the time. The annual rent paid by tenant farmers was only 2% to 4% of their yearly harvest, and in the case of natural disasters, rent could be waived.
In short, this relationship was that of landlords and tenant farmers, similar to those in feudal societies in China and Europe. Although there was indeed class inequality between tenant farmers and landlords, it is not comparable to the CCP's depiction of "serfs as speaking livestock"[4].
Tibetan writer Lhade Namloyak points out [5] that the CCP has manipulated terminology when describing the so-called "Tibetan serf system." The most typical examples are the terms like "chaba", "duiqiong", and "langsheng" (in Chinese pinyin), all of which are direct transliterations from pronunciations rather than literal meanings. In Tibetan, "chaba/khral pa" (ཁྲལ་པ།) means "taxpayer", "duiqiong/dud chung" (དུད་ཆུང།) means "small household farmer", and "langsheng/nang gzan" (ནང་གཟན།) means "domestic servant", who could become stewards or agents for nobles. Whether "chaba", "duiqiong", or "langsheng", they were all part of the farmer class. The CCP’s deliberate misrepresentation of farmers as “serfs” is a misleading word game. According to the CCP’s narratives, farmers in Han Chinese regions during the feudal era would also be considered “serfs.”
A term for serfs in modern Tibetan, བྲན་གཡོག, is a translation created from Chinese. In Tibetan, བྲན་གཡོག originally means "small servant", which can extend to mean subordinate or low-ranking servant. It does not inherently carry the connotation of serfdom as understood from Marxist social theory or as it existed in Russia.[6]
4.对比中国清朝的奴隶制
许多人已经遗忘这段真实的历史——一百多年前的清王朝时期的中国真实且广泛存在的奴隶制。
官修法典《大清律例》中有明文规定对奴婢的处置：
①凡奴婢殴家长者，有伤无伤，预殴之奴婢，不分首从，皆斩。杀者，故杀、殴杀，预殴之奴婢不分首从，皆凌迟处死，过失杀者，绞，监候。
②凡汉人家生奴仆，印契所买奴仆，…或婢女招配生有子息者，俱系家奴，世世子孙永远服役。婚配俱由家主。
来源：《大清律例·刑律·斗殴下》
翻译成现代文：1. 凡是奴婢殴打家长的，不论是否造成伤害，预先参与殴打的奴婢，无论是主谋还是从犯，都要被斩首。若是奴婢杀死家长，不论是故意杀害、殴打致死，还是预先参与殴打的奴婢，无论是主谋还是从犯，都要被处以凌迟（千刀万剐）之刑。因过失而杀死家长的，处以绞刑，并监禁一段时间后再执行。
2. 凡是汉人家里生的奴仆，或者是通过契约买来的奴仆，或者是婢女招配（嫁给）后生下的子女，全部都属于家里的奴仆，他们的子孙后代世世代代都要永远为家主服役。婚姻配偶都由家主决定。
可见清朝政府制定了关于奴隶制度的明确法律条文。然而西藏历史上没有任何这样的法令明确规定“农奴制”。通过查阅古籍我们可以发现，中国清代和民国的史著也没有一字提及西藏农奴。
这更加证明西藏农奴制是中共占领西藏之后才无中生有编造出来的概念。
4.Comparison with Slavery in the Qing Dynasty of China
Many people have forgotten this part of true history — the real and widespread existence of slavery during the Qing Dynasty in China over a hundred years ago. The official law code, the Great Qing Legal Code, explicitly regulated the treatment of slaves:
Regarding slaves who assault their masters:
Regardless of whether the assault results in injury, any slave who premeditatedly participates in the assault, whether the principal or accomplice, will be beheaded.
If a slave kills their master, whether it is intentional murder, killing through assault, or premeditated assault participation, all involved will be executed by slow slicing (Lingchi).
If the master is killed accidentally by the slave, the punishment is strangulation, with a period of imprisonment before execution.
Regarding slaves born into Han households:
Slaves born into Han households, those purchased through contracts, or the children born from slave women married off, are all considered household slaves.
These slaves and their descendants are to serve the household master perpetually.
Marriages and spouses for the slaves are decided by the household master.
The Qing Dynasty government had explicit legal provisions concerning the slavery system. However, in Tibetan historical records, there are no such explicit laws defining a system of serfdom. By examining ancient texts, we find that historical records from both the Qing Dynasty and the Republic of China do not mention Tibetan serfdom. This further proves that the concept of Tibetan serfdom was fabricated by the CCP following its occupation of Tibet.
5.对比中国古代的酷刑
中共在宣传中大肆渲染西藏农奴酷刑，然而这些酷刑真的全都是西藏本有的吗？
藏人作家唯色（འོད་ཟེར།）在一次访问中，驳斥了中国官方有关“野蛮封建农奴制”的宣传（一成不变地由理论上曾经在西藏使用的刑具，比如站笼、脚铐、脖子枷、用于挖眼睛的石头帽和尖刀等展览所“证明”），她说：“西藏一些最残忍的刑具，都是当时的驻藏大臣从中国带过去的。”比如用于限制犯人行动的“木枷”，在西藏它被恰如其分地称为རྒྱ་སྒོ།，意为“中国门”，广为驻藏的清廷官员所使用。另外一种叫做“拶指”，也就是夹手指的刑具，也是由中国引进至西藏的处罚，我们在中国明朝关于此类物品的一本图解要略里可以看到同样的拶指工具[7]。
中共在西藏百万农奴解放纪念馆中展出的很多诸如此类的刑具，很多其实都出自古代中国人自己的发明。
当然，就如很多同一时期等级森严的封建社会一样，西藏本土曾经也确实存在过严酷的刑罚，但我们要明确一个国家有无酷刑和有无奴隶制是两回事，并且在20世纪初，许多藏人精英就已经有了变革体制的意愿。我们不能脱离历史背景去评价一个社会的制度是否先进。在1910年代，十三世达赖喇嘛开始了现代化改革、着手变法，他从英国引入了司法制度，修改了旧有的刑法，并推行于西藏全境，废除了死刑并减少了肉体刑罚[8]。这是一次源于藏民族内部精英主导的制度更新和现代化改革，而现在中共在大肆渲染旧西藏的落后时，常常对上世纪藏人做出现代化改革的这段历史避而不谈。
5. Comparison with Cruel Punishment in Ancient China
The CCP heavily emphasizes the alleged cruel punishments of Tibetan serfdom in its propaganda. But were these tortures truly native to Tibet?
Tibetan writer Woeser (འོད་ཟེར།) refuted Chinese official propaganda regarding the "barbaric feudal serfdom" in an interview. She noted that many of the most brutal torture instruments, such as the cangue, shackles, neck yokes, stone hats for gouging eyes, and sharp knives, supposedly used in Tibet, were actually brought from China by the Qing imperial envoys stationed in Tibet.For instance, the cangue used to restrict prisoners' movements was aptly called རྒྱ་སྒོ་, meaning "Chinese door," and was widely used by Qing officials stationed in Tibet. Another example is the finger-press, a torture instrument introduced to Tibet from China, which can be seen in illustrated descriptions from the Chinese Ming Dynasty[7].
Many of the torture instruments displayed in the CCP's Memorial Hall Marking the Emancipation of More Than One Million Serfs, supposedly used in old Tibet, were actually inventions of ancient Chinese.
Certainly, like many other hierarchical feudal societies, Tibet did have severe punishments in its history. However, by the early 20th century, many Tibetan elites were already advocating for systemic reforms. In the 1910s, the 13th Dalai Lama initiated modernization and legal reforms in Tibet, drawing from the British judicial system. He revised the old laws, implemented these changes across Tibet, abolished the death penalty, and reduced corporal punishment[8]. When the CCP exaggerates the backwardness of old Tibet, it often neglects to mention the modernization efforts undertaken by Tibetans during the early 20th century.
6.中共编造农奴制谎言的居心何在？------假借“解放”之名义的殖民
其实，中共解放军最初进军侵略西藏时承诺要“维持西藏现有的社会阶级”，共同打倒帝国主义和国民党势力，根本没有提及“解放农奴”[9]。中共政府接管西藏后的前几年也保留了当地贵族对农民的权利。
在1959年，各地区各阶层的藏人都不满中共统治，由此爆发了西藏抗暴运动并遭到中共武力镇压，导致了达赖喇嘛流亡印度。在那之后，中共为了找到合理的借口殖民统治西藏，这才凭空捏造出了“农奴制”这个政治概念。如此一则是把藏人社会面临的矛盾由外来侵略转为了内部阶级斗争，让阶级矛盾超越民族矛盾，鼓动藏人之间互相批斗，由此坐收渔利，巩固了自己对西藏的统治。二则是中共通过把旧西藏妖魔化为黑暗、野蛮、落后的“人间地狱”，丑化西藏在国际上的形象，以此来合理化对藏区的强迫改造和对藏文化的打压与灭绝。
藏学家达瓦诺布教授在自传《红星照耀西藏》表示，「农奴」等观念对中老年藏人来说，是完全陌生的。在萨迦县进行「三反双减运动」（反叛乱、反乌拉、反封建制度，减租、减息）时，一位汉人问一位老妇人：「三大农奴主是谁？」因为她从来没有听过「农奴主」这个词，她回答：「党」。年轻藏人学会「诅咒旧社会，赞美新社会」的诀窍后，就能应付政治运动[9]。
6. The Intent Behind the CCP's Fabrication of the Serfdom Lie: Colonialism Under the Guise of "Liberation"
When the People's Liberation Army initially invaded Tibet, the CCP promised to "maintain Tibet's existing social hierarchy" and join forces to overthrow imperialism and the Kuomintang, without mentioning the "liberation of serfs"[9]. For the first few years after the CCP took control of Tibet, local nobles retained their rights over the peasants.
In 1959, widespread dissatisfaction with CCP rule led to the Tibetan uprising, which was brutally suppressed by the CCP, resulting in the Dalai Lama's exile to India. Following this, the CCP fabricated the political concept of "serfdom" to justify its colonial rule over Tibet. This served two purposes. Firstly, by shifting the focus from external invasion to internal class struggle, the CCP incited conflict among Tibetans themselves. This allowed the CCP to consolidate its control over Tibet by pitting Tibetans against each other. Secondly, by portraying old Tibet as a dark, barbaric, and backward "hell on earth", the CCP justified its forced changes to Tibet and the suppression and eradication of Tibetan culture, tarnishing Tibet's international image.
In his autobiography "Red Star Over Tibet," Professor Dawa Norbu noted that the concept of "serf" is entirely foreign to middle-aged and elderly Tibetans. During the CCP-led "Three Antis and Two Reductions Campaign" in Sakya County, a Han Chinese asked an elderly Tibetan woman, "Who are the three major serf owners?" Since she had never heard the term "serf owner" before, she replied, "The CCP." Once young Tibetans mastered the art of "cursing the old society and praising the new society," they could navigate political movements effectively[9].
7.“农奴制”不是侵略的理由！真正改革的选择权应该在藏人手里
前文提到清朝时期的中国有过明文规定的奴隶制，同时还存在凌迟等酷刑和裹小脚、溺死女婴这样压迫女性的陋习，按照中共的逻辑，中国解放军进藏解放农奴是出于正义，那么英、法等国是否也有权进军“解放”大清呢？（注：晚清鸦片战争时英、法已经废除奴隶制度。）
然而，无论彼此的文明发展如何，一个民族假借“解放”之名去侵略和殖民另一个民族都是不道德的。
藏人不需要外来的民族去解放或是拯救他们。几乎全部由汉人领导支配的共产党凭什么把自己摆在藏人（以及其他少数民族）的救世主的位置上？把别的民族描述成野蛮落后、不开化的蛮夷之类，因此需要另一个更“先进文明”的民族去解救他们，这本身就是一种傲慢的民族沙文主义。话说回来，同世界上任何一个社会一样，西藏社会绝对不是完美的，旧西藏制度确实有与现代化不相容之处，但那也应该由藏人自己做决定去改革它——像前文提到20世纪初西藏政府已经开始了现代化改革——由不着别的民族替他们做主。
7. “Serfdom” Does Not Justify Invasion! The Choice of Reform Should Belong to the Tibetans
As mentioned earlier, China during the Qing Dynasty had explicit laws on slavery and tortures such as lingchi (slow slicing) and foot-binding(a brutal custom of breaking and tightly binding the feet of young girls to change their shape and size), as well as the drowning of female infants(gender-based female infanticide). According to the CCP's narrative, if the PLA's invasion into Tibet to "liberate serfs" was justified, then did Britain and France have the same right to invade and "liberate" the Qing Dynasty (when both countries had already abolished slavery by the late Qing period)?
However, regardless of the development of civilizations, it is unethical for one nation to invade and colonize another under the guise of "liberation".
Tibetans do not need a foreign nation or ideology to liberate or save them. What gives the CCP, predominantly led by Han Chinese, the right to position itself as the savior of Tibetans (and other ethnic minorities)? We must recognize that depicting other nations as barbaric, backward, and uncivilized, thus requiring rescue by a more "advanced civilization", is a form of arrogant racism. Like any other society, Tibetan society is not flawless and its old social structure had aspects incompatible with modernization. But it should be up to the Tibetans themselves to decide and enact reforms. As mentioned earlier, the Tibetan government had already begun modernizing reforms in the early 20th century. These changes should come from within, not be imposed by another nation.
Sources:
1.https://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2011-07/11/content_1903871.htm
2.https://www.gov.cn/test/2009-03/30/content_1272248.htm
3.本文關於歷史史料的部分均引自劉漢城教授著作《西藏自古以來就不是中國的一部分》The historical information in this article is quoted from Prof. Hon-Shiang Lau's book, "Tibet was Never Part of China Before 1950".
4.https://www.rfa.org/mandarin/pinglun/chenpokong/chen_pokong-03192009113852.html 作者：陈破空 Author: Chen Pokong
5.https://www.aboluowang.com/2017/0817/978872.html 作者：安乐业 Author: Lhade Namloyak
6.https://xizang-zhiye.org/达瓦才仁观点：西藏没有农奴制，和中国签的是和/ 作者：达瓦才仁 Author: Dawa Tsering
7.http://woeser.middle-way.net/2009/09/blog-post_22.html?m=1 作者：嘉央诺布 Author: Jamyang Norbu
9.https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%A5%BF%E8%97%8F%E5%86%9C%E5%A5%B4%E5%88%B6%E5%BA%A6
10.https://china-underground.com/2024/10/18/40-rare-images-of-old-tibet/
Author: Tara Freesoul
Proofreading: GD
諷刺的是，中共今年還要隆重慶祝“西藏自治区成立60周年”
博主看过布达拉宫底下的博物馆吗？阿姐鼓、肉莲花，奴隶主、僧人想杀就杀，想剥皮就剥皮，博主愿意去解放前的西藏吗