Comments on: Articulation and More http://www.rangzen.net/2010/06/07/articulation-and-more/ Global action for independent Tibet Sat, 04 Feb 2012 23:45:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.4 By: Topden Tsering http://www.rangzen.net/2010/06/07/articulation-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-100 Topden Tsering Fri, 18 Jun 2010 23:10:28 +0000 http://www.rangzen.net/?p=3101#comment-100 I'm with you on this, Seldon. Don't let this piece discourage you. I think it's a TCV thing to believe yourself to be a world saver, a writer of any significant import, an articulator with the most relevant insight, all that without a slightest qualm and self-doubt. We lack the sophistication your generation has at your disposal, if you choose to take away from the world what is available out there. The fallacy of wishing rational mechanism on the Chinese government's thinking and behavior is another sign of stunted intellectual aspect of our exile reality. The Chinese call the Dalai Lama, Jamyang Norbu, TYC, every one of them terrorist; but not expressing the complex reality of our situation only contributes towards our playing into their hands. So just do what you do. I'm just glad to see you having matured from that teenage girl into this formidable force at least on our bay area scene. I’m with you on this, Seldon. Don’t let this piece discourage you. I think it’s a TCV thing to believe yourself to be a world saver, a writer of any significant import, an articulator with the most relevant insight, all that without a slightest qualm and self-doubt. We lack the sophistication your generation has at your disposal, if you choose to take away from the world what is available out there. The fallacy of wishing rational mechanism on the Chinese government’s thinking and behavior is another sign of stunted intellectual aspect of our exile reality. The Chinese call the Dalai Lama, Jamyang Norbu, TYC, every one of them terrorist; but not expressing the complex reality of our situation only contributes towards our playing into their hands. So just do what you do. I’m just glad to see you having matured from that teenage girl into this formidable force at least on our bay area scene.

]]> By: Mila Rangzen http://www.rangzen.net/2010/06/07/articulation-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-99 Mila Rangzen Sun, 13 Jun 2010 07:43:59 +0000 http://www.rangzen.net/?p=3101#comment-99 Guys, give me some idea about what's 'symbolic' and 'literal' and the difference between the two so we are all on the same track! Guys, give me some idea about what’s ‘symbolic’ and ‘literal’ and the difference between the two so we are all on the same track!

]]> By: Ngawang http://www.rangzen.net/2010/06/07/articulation-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Ngawang Wed, 09 Jun 2010 21:00:39 +0000 http://www.rangzen.net/?p=3101#comment-96 It strikes me at times how people can take things out of context and misconstrue the words to quickly criticize other beings. I have read the Stanford Daily article and understand the point that the speaker Tenzin Seldon was trying to make. It is understandable that her words would spark criticisms from some in the Tibetan community but what we need to understand is that she isn't incorrect in making that statement. If you take a look at society itself, for example the American society, we know that although Obama is the President, he doesn't represent every single American. This is the same in every other society including our own. If you were to read the article with an open mind, you would know that the reason for Samdong Rinpoche visit to Stanford was so that people attending the meeting would see Tibet and its struggles through another leader's perspective. One man cannot represent an entire nation for everyone in the nation has their own point of view. So for you to criticize Tenzin Seldon for one statement without knowing the entire interview is ignorant on your part. It is the same as me taking the statement about how you and your friends signed a petition against the resettlement project and saying that you are against the expansion of our culture. For me to criticize you on just that sound bite would be ignorant of me. Although, you have your own opinions, it is always good to approach an article with an open mind and to know every single fact before you are quick to make judgments and criticize others. It strikes me at times how people can take things out of context and misconstrue the words to quickly criticize other beings. I have read the Stanford Daily article and understand the point that the speaker Tenzin Seldon was trying to make. It is understandable that her words would spark criticisms from some in the Tibetan community but what we need to understand is that she isn’t incorrect in making that statement. If you take a look at society itself, for example the American society, we know that although Obama is the President, he doesn’t represent every single American. This is the same in every other society including our own. If you were to read the article with an open mind, you would know that the reason for Samdong Rinpoche visit to Stanford was so that people attending the meeting would see Tibet and its struggles through another leader’s perspective. One man cannot represent an entire nation for everyone in the nation has their own point of view. So for you to criticize Tenzin Seldon for one statement without knowing the entire interview is ignorant on your part. It is the same as me taking the statement about how you and your friends signed a petition against the resettlement project and saying that you are against the expansion of our culture. For me to criticize you on just that sound bite would be ignorant of me. Although, you have your own opinions, it is always good to approach an article with an open mind and to know every single fact before you are quick to make judgments and criticize others.

]]> By: tseldon http://www.rangzen.net/2010/06/07/articulation-and-more/comment-page-1/#comment-95 tseldon Wed, 09 Jun 2010 07:10:10 +0000 http://www.rangzen.net/?p=3101#comment-95 Dear Bhuchung la, I am the Stanford student that you quoted in this article. It's a bit disconcerting to see that you've taken a quote from an interview that lasted 8-10 minutes to make your argument. As you probably know, in your years of experience as a writer, it's easier to misconstrue what someone says than to fully comprehend and critically acknowledge where that individual is deriving his/her experience or information from. I’d like to clarify few things. This comment is from “Stanford Daily” – our school newspaper and the context and primary audience are Stanford students who know fairly little about my country and my people. Their limited perspective of Tibet derives from media portrayal of our religion and our spiritual leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. For them, Tibet is His Holiness. That comment, by no means, is discrediting His Holiness or his policies. However, it illuminates the lack of curriculum of Tibet in our education. Yes, His Holiness represents the majority of Tibetan people’s aspiration, but does His Holiness represent every single Tibetan’s experience? There are Tibetans from Lhasa that believe in self-determination, then there are the youth in California that believe in freedom – are any less Tibetan because of this diverging view from our leader? That “premature articulation” you refer to is what generates and fosters youth to challenge our governance, to practice action over apathy, and it’s one way we can realize true progress/change. I am neither angry, violent, nor rebellious – traits you mention that invigorated and naïve youth depict. On the other hand, I work within our institution to create tangible results. If I am criticized over a single misrepresented statement, how can we fathom progress to unorthodox views that test our barriers? I can strongly say that I am one to learn, unlearn, and relearn our history with clear passion – enough to challenge traditional notions. I might be idealistic in our vision but I am pragmatic in our strategies. Best, Tenzin Seldon Dear Bhuchung la,

I am the Stanford student that you quoted in this article. It’s a bit disconcerting to see that you’ve taken a quote from an interview that lasted 8-10 minutes to make your argument. As you probably know, in your years of experience as a writer, it’s easier to misconstrue what someone says than to fully comprehend and critically acknowledge where that individual is deriving his/her experience or information from.

I’d like to clarify few things. This comment is from “Stanford Daily” – our school newspaper and the context and primary audience are Stanford students who know fairly little about my country and my people. Their limited perspective of Tibet derives from media portrayal of our religion and our spiritual leader, His Holiness the Dalai Lama. For them, Tibet is His Holiness. That comment, by no means, is discrediting His Holiness or his policies. However, it illuminates the lack of curriculum of Tibet in our education.

Yes, His Holiness represents the majority of Tibetan people’s aspiration, but does His Holiness represent every single Tibetan’s experience? There are Tibetans from Lhasa that believe in self-determination, then there are the youth in California that believe in freedom – are any less Tibetan because of this diverging view from our leader?

That “premature articulation” you refer to is what generates and fosters youth to challenge our governance, to practice action over apathy, and it’s one way we can realize true progress/change. I am neither angry, violent, nor rebellious – traits you mention that invigorated and naïve youth depict. On the other hand, I work within our institution to create tangible results. If I am criticized over a single misrepresented statement, how can we fathom progress to unorthodox views that test our barriers? I can strongly say that I am one to learn, unlearn, and relearn our history with clear passion – enough to challenge traditional notions. I might be idealistic in our vision but I am pragmatic in our strategies.

Best,

Tenzin Seldon

]]>