Talk:Social class in Tibet

[Untitled]
Some useful information here: http://www.tibet.com/WhitePaper/white4.html on social structure pre-communism from Tibetan gov in exile pov. I've not got time to do it myself just now but thought someone might want to follow up. Dakinijones (talk) 12:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Another potential source, but this about a region in Amdo, is Life and Marriage in Skya rgya: A Tibetan Village By Blo brtan rdo rje with Charles Kevin Stuart - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Tralpa, Nangzan and Duiqoin
As suggested in those three articles, they should be merged into this one. Whoever performs the merge, please make sure that the different name forms are retained as alternatives. All the variants in those articles have been used in different contexts on the web and in literature, so people may search for them. That does not mean that we need redirects from every possible spelling variant, but it would be nice to at least mention them in the article, so they turn up in searches. Mlewan (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobility
Should a description of the nobility - rights, privileges, and obligations - be given?--Jomellon (talk) 12:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Landless peasants / mi-bo / human lease
> "landless peasants (mi-bo) were not obligated to and did not have any heritable rights to land. In contrast with the taxpayer families and householders, they had the freedom to go wherever they wanted even though they still had tax responsibilities to their districts."

This above reads like 'free citizen, had to pay taxes, don't we all (sigh)'. This isn't really a fair description of 'human lease' conditions as presented by Goldstein. He presents it as being much more oppressive. A mi-bo was owned by his lord. The relative freedom of the mi-bo status was purchased by an annual fee. The status could be revoked at the will of the lord. The fee could be raised if the mi-bo prospered. The lord could exact special 'unfree labor' at will, eg for a special event. The offspring of the mi-bo did not automatically inherit the status of 'mi-bo', they did inherit the status of 'mi-ser', and could be indentured to service at age 13, or would have to pay their own fee.

In the debate with Miller in the mid 80's, the view currently in the article was convincingly challenged. The other scholars who had put forward similar views to Miller (Micheal, Dargyay and Aziz), and whose views were specifically challenged by Goldstein, did not reply.--Jomellon (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Untouchables / ragyaba
I think the ragyaba ('untouchables') need to be mentioned. They performed the 'unclean' work. - dismemberment for sky burials, judicial mutilation, butchers, blacksmiths (!), prostitutes,...--Jomellon (talk) 12:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In the work referenced French (2002). The author claims that 'outcastes' "shared in the social and religious life of most communities" (French, 2002, p.112). This seems to differ from the Untouchable 'rules' in India. Should this be included. What do others think? Fountain Posters (talk) 10:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Topic of this page
Following the suggestion of Dakinijones on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy#The_.22PRC_is_worse.22_edits

I would like to verify if everyone is up for this as being a page on social conditions in Old Tibet, that is not narrowly defined to being only a lexicon of classes, and also without comparison to Tibet after 1959 inside the PRC.

In that context a name change to Social Conditions in Old Tibet may be appropriate--Jomellon (talk) 13:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to restrict it to "Old" Tibet. Bertport (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The reasons are
 * - it was a completely different system to the current PRC, ideologically, socially, economicaly, practically, judicially,... The material on post 1959 is completely irrelevant to the pre 1959 social system and conditons under Lamaism.


 * -In the same way as 'Human Rights in the PRC' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_the_PRC doesn't discuss Haka social systems, or the Tibetan judicial system. Bringing them together causes confusion not clarity.


 * - should someone from the PRC add an exact description of the organisation of the communist party or a collective farm on this page as it currently is? Would that help to understand the social situation of a 'mi-bo', 'nangzahn' etc, or would that be a different topic?


 * - While conditions in Old Tibet influenced the PRC time, the reverse is clearly not the case! That is you do not need to understand the PRC time to give you context on Old Tibet.


 * - A page on Social Conditions in Old Tibet and just that is an interesting, valid and vast topic. The Old Tibetan Lamaist state lasted c 1000 years, and it is also an academic discipline in itself, and there are many books on just that, so that is not such a wild idea!.


 * - if you want to know about conditions in Old Tibet where should you go in WP?


 * - if we don't limit it we will be back with the block additions of 'the PRC/Lamas eat kittens' which don't illuminate this topic.

Personally I have read a lot recently on social conditions in Old Tibet because I wanted a picture of that system. I would have expected to be able to get it in Wikipedia. I am interested in the socio_political system of Lamaism, (and older Tibetan history). I don't care so much about PRC time. I finally did get it by buying a load of books, and reading on the internet... when I came back to WP I found the 'Serfdom ...' page and thought some things that imho needed straightening out, which was the start of my WP career.

If Social Conditions in Old Tibet isnt this page, and it isnt 'Serfdom...controversy' as both Bertport and Dakinijones insist, then I propose opening a new page with that title and that topic.--Jomellon (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly you have a lot of passion and energy on your topic. Actually, I think the originally intended scope of this article was pretty much what you have in mind. I'm not sure "Old Tibet" is widely understood to mean "Tibet before the Chinese takeover" but it is conveniently short for use in a title. The article can have a note directing readers to the Tibet under The People's Republic of China subsection of Tibet for post-1950 material. Note that some discussion of contemporaneous conditions in neighboring countries would be pertinent to this article. Bertport (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Bertport... Clearly you have a lot of passion and energy on your topic. Ach, no, I am Scottish and always like this! Actually the perfect example of what I mean occurred to me: imagine if the article on the Ottoman Empire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire 30% was statements saying the Christians got a raw deal in the 20th century and 30% by Turkish nationalists that conditions were much better after Ataturk. I would go 'arrrgh' if I wanted a balanced picture of the whole 6 century Ottoman time. --Jomellon (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you be ok with "Social conditions in Tibet pre-1950"? It's an extra 5 characters but might save a lot of debate about what's "old". Dakinijones (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Social conditions in Tibet pre-1950" sounds good! It is clearer. Sorry for the delay replying: life happening! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jomellon (talk • contribs) 18:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Tibetan Society" with two sections, pre-1950 and post-1950. And maybe a sentence or two on Tibetan communes. And a link to this page from the main Tibet page. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TenzinNamgyal (talk • contribs) 21:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this suggestion.Gimme danger (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree for the reasons given above. What would your reasons be TenzinNamgyal and Gimme danger? --Jomellon (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)