Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kwork2 (talk | contribs) at 20:13, 5 June 2008 (→Slavery: discuss your objection on the talk page rather than engage in edit war methods). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (May 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Serfdom in Tibet controversy" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2008) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The existence of serfdom in Tibet has been debated by scholars since the advent of Tibetology. Whether pre-communist Tibetan society was especially oppressive or whether it was comparable to similar social structures in other regions, the existence of slavery in the explicit sense of trade in human beings, and whether Tibetan society can be described using Western term like serf and feudalism are unresolved questions in the field.

Hierachical structure of society

Prior to Communist takeover, there were three main classes: ordinary laypeople, lay noble, and monks. The ordinary layperson could be further classified as a peasant farmer (shing-pa) or nomadic pastoralist (trokpa).

Living conditions varied by location, with some Tibetans in extreme poverty, and others able to grow enough food to be immune to famine. Author Israel Epstein, a member of the Chinese Communist Party, described in some worst cases serfs had to hand over children to the manor as household slaves or nangzan, because they were too poor to keep them alive. But in some other areas, according to other western travellers, many serfs were able to feed themselves.

Melvyn Goldstein, in his book A History of Modern Tibet argues that although serfdom was prevalent in Tibet, this did not mean that it was an entirely static society. There were several types of serf sub-status, of which one of the most important was the "human lease", which enabled a serf to acquire a degree of personal freedom. This was because it offered an alternative in which, despite retaining the concept of lordship, the serfs were not bound to a landed estate.

Slavery

Slavery had been documented in old Tibet, and its severity and extent has been debated among historians.

Sir Charles Bell, a British colonial officer, also a renowned Tibet Scholar and a personal friend of the 13th Dalai Lama said:

"The slavery in the Chumpi valley was of a very mild type. If a slave was not well treated, it was easy for him to escape into Sikkim and British India."

References

1. Snellgrove, Cultural History, pp. 257–9
2. Tibet Transformed. by Israel Epstein Pg.46
3. The Story of Tibet by Tomas Laird, Pg 319
4. Serfdom and mobility: an examination of the institution of "human lease" in traditional Tibetan society. By Melvyn C. Goldstein. Journal of Asian Studies, vol. 30, no. 3(May 1971) pg 521-34
5. Stuart Gelder and Roma Gelder, The Timely Rain,: Travels in New Tibet (Monthly Review Press, 1964), page 110
6. Charles Bell, Tibet Past and Present, 79.

External links and further reading

• " The World: Searching for Tibet; The Shangri-La That Never Was" analysis by Barbara Crossette in The New York Times July 5, 1998

Bibliography

• Snellgrove, David (1968). A Cultural History of Tibet. London: George Weidenfield and Nicolson Ltd. ISBN 0297763172. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Misplaced Pages neutral point of view disputes from May 2008
• Serfdom
• Feudalism
• Agricultural labor