显示标签为“摄影”的博文。显示所有博文
显示标签为“摄影”的博文。显示所有博文

2019年10月17日星期四

Tsering Dorje Brings A Revolution To New Haven


Tsering Dorje Brings A Revolution To New Haven
Lucy Gellman | October 3rd, 2019


Forbidden Memory: Photographs of the Cultural Revolution in Tibet by Tsering Dorje runs now through Oct. 27 at City Gallery on State Street. All photos are by Tsering Dorje, printed by William Frucht and photographed in situ with the gallery's permission. 

Even before you catch her eye, the Red Guard looks so very young. She faces forward in profile, eyes fixed on something beyond the frame. Her neck strains just a little. Her chin is a set and rounded square, holding so much stress it seems her face may cave in at any time. There is a whole, tiny army behind her, backs raised, uniforms creased, eyes shifting in the afternoon light. They are, in every way, just kids.
And yet, they’ve been tasked with helping usher in the Cultural Revolution, all before the end of high school.
“Tibetan Red Guards in the Teaching Courtyard” is just one of the images on Forbidden Memory: Photographs of the Cultural Revolution in Tibet by Tsering Dorje, running now through Oct. 27 at City Gallery on State Street. One by one, the photographs reveal a largely untold—and deliberately buried—story of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution in Tibet, and specifically its capital city of Lhasa. They comprise a specific period of work by the late Tsering Dorje, who was an official photographer in the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
The exhibition is curated by photographer William Frucht, executive editor for political science and law at Yale University Press, with support from Tsering Dorje’s daughter, Tsering Woeser, translator Susan Chen, and Tibet scholar Robert Barnett. From its unassuming place on State Street it is a revelation, bringing to light the violence, selective amnesia, and cultural erasure of the period.

For Frucht, the exhibition’s genesis began a few years ago, when a book proposal from Beijing-based poet, writer and activist Tsering Woeser came across his desk. In the project, Woeser was pitching a book on her father’s photographs, taken in Lhasa in the late 1960s. As she explained, her father had kept several of his negatives, meaning that photographs outlived those years, and escaped complete control at the hands of the Chinese government. 
By that time, she had already published two books in Chinese, from the Taiwanese imprint LocusForbidden Memory: Tibet During the Cultural Revolution and Tibet Remembered, the latter of which told the stories of many of the subjects in her father’s photographs. Now, she was working to get the images and their stories to an English speaking audience.
The images struck Frucht immediately. At the wildly beating heart of both books is a vivid history of violence that has been concealed and suppressed by the Chinese government for over half a century, and a writer who was ready to show it through her father’s eyes. In 1950—when the PLA had first invaded Tibet—Dorje was just 13 years old. The army still took him into its ranks. 
By the mid-1960s, he had become a mid-level officer and then official photographer, documenting a campaign to purge Tibet of Buddhism, excess wealth, social hierarchy and rich Tibetan culture in the name of Mao’s version of Communism. While he later became allied with a faction that fell out of favor with the government, he remained in the army for years.
“But his career stalled,” Frucht said. He died years later, in 1991.

For Frucht, the images were a revelation. In part, he was drawn in because “it’s not totally clear what was private and what was official”—Dorje straddled documentary photography, straight up propaganda, photojournalism and fine art. Several of the photographs went beyond conventional propaganda to depict reeducation campaigns and brutal “struggle sessions,” in which monks, landlords, business owners and well-to-do renters were dragged out into the streets, made to “struggle” under the weight of their possessions and their faith.
In others, Frucht found himself drawn in by figures who didn’t quite seem politically converted, a rare glimpse into the widespread but largely unspoken malaise and ultimate ravages of the period. Through the photographs, Frucht felt that he could see Tibetans splitting into increasing factions, divided first by the Chinese government and then by each other. 
“These weren’t just mobs going after each other,” he said in a recent interview at the gallery. “It was neighbors.”
Even after Yale University Press passed on the book (it is set to be published through Potomac Books, an imprint of the University of Nebraska, in April of next year) the images stayed with him. Last year, he began a push to bring them to the gallery, which ultimately included an Indegogo campaign over the summer before an installation this fall.
In the images, viewers come face-to-face with a history they have likely never seen before—although parts of it feel eerily familiar. In some, Dorje’s eye for propaganda is in full force: a WPA-era sensibility oozes from a print of an “emancipated serf,” whose whole body takes up the frame as he opens his mouth and triumphantly lifts his arm.
It’s a compelling image: the subject looks free and relieved, as if some great weight (perhaps that of material culture, it seems to suggest) has been lifted off of him. His sunhat frames his face like a halo. The outstretched arm, filling a corner of the frame, reflects images from Soviet Propaganda posters also from the 20th century. A label below the image explains that a pen, clipped just so to his pocket, is a status symbol. 

In another, the so-dubbed Tibetan red singer” Tseten Drolma steps forward, her left arm outstretched in a nearly perfect line. Her body is open to the camera, sharp before an out-of-focus crowd behind her. In her right hand, she clasps Mao’s now-infamous Little Red Book. As a label explains, she became known for her brand of music, Tibetan folk songs”rewritten to praise Chairman Mao or the Party.”
Others are hard to stomach as they expose viewers to the public humiliation and public spectacle of the period. In some, monasteries are destroyed, the damage surveyed. Military parades ride through the center of town with intense machismo and swerve. Children pose with copies of the Little Red Book that they are too poor to possibly read.
In a particularly heart wrenching image, Dorje has placed himself at the heart of a struggle session, his camera trained on the wife of Sampo Tsewang Rigdzin, part of a family of aristocrats. The camera is close enough to capture the laborious fold of her body to a 90-degree angle, eyes fixed in the ground beneath her, fingers curled around a tray she must not (but seems doomed to) drop.
As she leans forward, the viewer sees that she has been weighed down by not only her own jewelry and a tray of ritual objects, but also a large box that is revealed to be a bo—“a metal tub used to weigh barley,” as the label explains—fixed to her back with lengths of industrial rope. It’s anti-consumer, anti-wealth rhetoric taken to its most brutal, inconceivable, inhumane point—then carried out by Tibetan soldiers who look like kids, because they are.

“For me, it’s a glimpse into this hidden time,” said Frucht. “I had only the most superficial knowledge of what the Cultural Revolution was … a lot of this is completely new to me.”
He expects that much of it will be new to viewers too. The photographs defy a solely documentary quality: they seem to breathe history right into the gallery as half-reminder, half-warning. Almost all of them contain a detail that makes one stop right in their tracks: a small palm with its fingers outstretched; a face that is twisted just so; a pair of eyes that wander off. In one, Dorje has captured a monk who looks straight into the camera as everyone around him waves on “the new, ‘autonomous’ government” in Lhasa.
He’s not down with the program, and his dubious stare suggests that viewers shouldn’t be either. A label explains that his ostensibly skepticism—or maybe it’s downright anxiety—was correct. Of thousands of temples and monasteries in the region, only eight remained by the 1970s.
“In so many of these, there really is a main character,” Frucht said.

In another nearby, the photographer depicts Zhang Guohua, the Chinese general who led the invasion of Tibet in 1950. In the image, the general leans back just a little, head turned to the left as he makes an announcement. His body seems so sure of its place: hands clasped, veins popping. Sunglasses cover his eyes. Words fly from his open mouth; teeth glint in the light. Over his left shoulder, a subordinate officer laughs and applauds. Only a text beneath the image reveals that Zhang Guohua was ultimately removed by a rival faction. The subordinate officer took his place.
The images are self-conscious in this way, like Dorje knows he’s writing history (and indeed, he was ordered by the army to do so) without knowing how that history will end. While his life ended in 1991, his daughter has since returned to the region, tracking down many of the subjects. As memories of those years have become more distant, they have gone on to live vibrant and sometimes religious lives, their futures shifting as the past becomes, indeed, a forbidden memory for many of them. 
It’s a history that has eerie parallels to the present. While Frucht is quick to say that the invasion of Tibet constituted a uniquely brutal attack on religion and culture, the images resonate decades later, as India’s government threatens to push out its Muslims, Europe warms to its far right, borders tighten as migration explodes, and Democracy faces massive structural challenges across the U.S. and across the globe.
Indeed, the photographs ask viewers what they can do differently in their own circles, to prevent the same hysteria, partisanship, infighting and violence that seem to repeat themselves every few years. 
“I’m very interested in this phenomenon of political hysteria—when people find it suddenly sensible and necessary to to something that they would otherwise never do,” Frucht said, surrounded by the image. “The Cultural Revolution took a particularly Chinese, and in Tibet, a particularly Tibetan form.”
“But you can see some larger resonance, in those actions that we think of as beyond the pale that become justifiable.”

City Gallery is open Thursday to Sunday, 12 p.m. to 4 p.m. or by appointment. Find out more at their website.  

(https://www.newhavenarts.org/arts-paper/articles/forbidden-memory-brings-a-censored-tibet-to-new-haven)

2018年5月14日星期一

唯色:“其实我并不愿意你是一个金珠玛米”——由一次访谈继续思考文革在西藏(8)



“其实我并不愿意你是一个金珠玛米”——由一次访谈继续思考文革在西藏(8


/唯色


就我父亲拍摄的西藏文革照片及我的调查文字和新拍照片结集出版的《杀劫》新版一书,纽约时报中文网在前年8月末对我所做的连载访谈中,访谈者最后问我了一个于我而言其实是一个很重要的问题:如果你父亲还活着,你认为他会怎么看你的这本书和你现在做的西藏人权工作?你觉得你父亲会如何看西藏的文革?


实际上,我父亲没有专门对我谈起过文革,但在我的记忆中,他不喜欢文革,可能是因为他在文革中受到了排挤。如我在《杀劫》中所写:“……革委会成立之初,倾向于‘造总’观点的西藏军区司令员曾雍雅当了主任,一时军队内部的派性纷争发生倾斜,包括我父亲在内的一百多名‘大联指’观点的支持者受到整肃,纷纷被逐。1970年初,我父亲被调往四川省甘孜藏族自治州某县人民武装部(简称人武部),他于是带着妻子儿女离开拉萨。然而他始终不能忘怀拉萨,20年后,再一次带着家人重又回到令他魂牵梦绕的拉萨,却不曾料及,仅一年多,因为突发疾病,过早离世,被葬在西郊烈士陵园,那里有不少当年与他一起参军的同乡人,也有死于文革武斗的红卫兵。”


我说过,我父亲热爱摄影。我经常这样想,他如果不以军人为职业,一定会选择摄影,但命运却让他作了一辈子的军人和一辈子的摄影爱好者。然而,命运还让他的摄影与我有关,结果是:那些藏在箱底的照片,似乎是为等待我有一天以按图索骥的方式,去了解西藏的历史,并出现在《杀劫》这本书中。


如果我父亲还在世,对西藏的历史与现实应该会有不满,会有批评,但他是不是就认可我的观点、我的写作以及我选择的道路,还真不一定。我记得他在世时经常叮嘱我要“两条腿走路”。意思是说,我可以走我自己选择的道路,但也要走社会与环境所规划的道路;一条腿走自己的路,另一条腿走大多数人的路。我当时反问过他,两条腿走路的话,其中一条腿会不会折断?但他没有回答我。我曾写过一首题为《背叛》的诗,是这样写的(其实修改了多次,以下算是最后一次的定稿吧):


我似乎背叛了他

似乎离他的愿望越来越远

是这样吗?不是这样吧?

我一般很少想这个问题

我一般自有一套发乎于心的理由

我甚至相信,他说不定会为之欣慰

我写了一本又一本的书

我有了他梦寐以求的作家之名

我还让他拍摄的照片印成了影集

说不定我是他这一世最大的骄傲

然而是这样吗?他真会这么想吗?

也许恰恰相反,也许很是痛心

于是我开始写一本家族故事

写了十年,还没写完

开篇就想说:亲爱的父亲

其实我并不愿意你是一个

金珠玛米……


“金珠玛米”与“杀劫”一样,也是新造的藏语词汇,意思是解放军。但无论如何,无论是背叛与否,我都对我的父亲充满感激与感恩,深深地爱他。


实际上人生复杂,难以简而言之。对于我来说,可能更像诗人德里克•沃尔科特(Derek Walcott)所写:“我,染了他们双方的血毒,/分裂到血管的我,该向着哪一边?/我诅咒过大英政权喝醉的军官,我该如何/在非洲和我所爱的英语之间抉择?/是背叛这二者,还是把二者给我的奉还?/我怎能面对屠杀而冷静?/我怎能背向非洲而生活?”




2017年11月23日星期四

唯色:有关西藏文革照片的拍摄者——由一次访谈继续思考文革在西藏(2)

1966年8月间,文革批斗”牛鬼蛇神“,女活佛多吉帕姆被斗,而她身后左侧出现的头戴鸭舌帽、身穿便装、一只手高高举起相机的人,正是西藏军区摄影记者蓝志贵。(泽仁多吉摄影)


有关西藏文革照片的拍摄者——由一次访谈继续思考文革在西藏(2


文/唯色

这里要插入一个故事。而这将是在译为英文版的《杀劫》中新补充的一页。先说十多年前,我开始从事依据我父亲拍摄的西藏文革照片在拉萨等地的采访与调查,为方便携带,更出于保护这批宝贵的历史照片的安全,住在北京的王力雄将底片冲洗出来,再把照片复印在A4纸上寄给了我。不过这样也就使得照片不够清晰,以致一些细节被忽略,直到原照片印在书上出版之后才逐渐被发现。比如19668月间批斗女活佛桑顶·多吉帕姆·德钦曲珍的照片,直到几个月前在修订英文译本时,被细心的译者问道:“背景里那只举起的手中,那个方盒子可能是什么?你在高画质的照片里看得出来吗?”


而我这才注意到这一重要的遗漏。实在是遗憾,2006年出版《杀劫》中文版时忽略了这个人。这个在多吉帕姆身后左侧出现的头戴鸭舌帽、身穿便装、一只手高高举起相机的人,我仔细辨认,方认出他正是近年来被中国官方媒体称为“新中国摄影史中重要人物,二十世纪50年代至70年代西藏摄影的代表人物,创造了这一时期西藏经典影像的摄影大师”[1],“亲眼见证并记录、拍摄了20世纪50年代至70年代初西藏社会发展中的几乎所有重大事件”[2],他的名字是蓝志贵。据介绍,1949年,在重庆照相馆当学徒的17岁的蓝志贵,参加中共进入西藏的解放军十八军,并于1950年随军拍摄进军西藏系列照片。而作为随军摄影记者,他“领到了全新的135莱卡和120禄莱福莱克斯”相机。1970年,他作为军代表被西藏军区派驻成都某工厂“支左”(我分析,作为最早进入西藏的十八军军人,他与我父亲一样,文革中,都属于支持十八军军长、后任西藏军区司令员、中共西藏自治区第一书记张国华的两大造反派之一——“大联指”观点那派)。1978年他在成都转业,不再是军人。


1956年,在西藏边境,西藏军区政治部
摄影记者蓝志贵与珞巴人。(泽仁多吉摄影)
实际上我父亲与蓝志贵非常熟悉,他们都曾属西藏军区政治部干部,曾经共同拍摄过1956年的珞巴人群像、1962年的中印战争、1965年西藏自治区成立大会等。而在文革中,与我父亲一样,蓝志贵也同样拍摄过许多照片,而且,作为西藏军区政治部的专职摄影记者,他应该拍摄了比我父亲更多的西藏文革照片。据介绍:“1966年,文革初期拍摄了《西藏红卫兵集会》、《批斗西藏‘牛鬼蛇神’》。1966年,获得由中国人民解放军西藏军区直属政治部颁发的三等功一次。”[3]正如我父亲拍摄的这张批斗女活佛桑顶·多吉帕姆的照片所显示的,他也在现场,而他手里高举的正是120禄莱福莱克斯相机。然而,直到他于2016年去世,他的有关西藏文革的摄影,只是在近年的中国网站上见到过寥寥几张[4],属于群众场面,并无具体场景,并且,至少有三张照片的图说,基本上沿用了我在2006年出版的《杀劫》中的相关图说。比如这样写道:“1966年,文革爆发。藏地也未能躲过。跟内地一样,西藏地区也出现了红卫兵造反、批判牛鬼蛇神、戴高帽子游街等情状。1966819日,拉萨召开庆祝文化大革命大会后,红卫兵组织遍布开来。图为1966年,拉萨街头的集会。”“文革期间,西藏红卫兵也‘破四旧’。1966824日,被誉为‘全藏最崇高寺庙’的大昭寺遭到红卫兵破坏。菩萨被砍倒扔进拉萨河里。图为1966年拉萨大昭寺,手持红缨枪的西藏红卫兵。”等等。


我也想起了1980年代,我在成都上西南民族学院预科高中时,我父亲,时任甘孜军分区副参谋长,带我去过蓝志贵在四川人民出版社大院里的住处,这说明他们私交不错,只是我已不记得他们交谈过什么。


还要补充的是,如我在《杀劫》新版(2016年台湾大块文化出版《杀劫:文革五十周年纪念新版》)21页上图的图说中,提到拍摄僧侣辩经的,是中央新闻纪录电影制片厂驻西藏记者站的藏人摄影师;在《杀劫》26页新增图片里,可以看到在拉萨举行的庆祝文革的大会上,至少出现了三位摄像、拍照的人,从左至右,分别为《西藏日报》的摄影记者、中央新闻纪录电影制片厂驻西藏记者站的藏人摄影师,以及很像是蓝志贵本人的摄影记者;在《杀劫》97页图说里,提到几个也在现场拍摄游斗“牛鬼蛇神”的人,包括了《西藏日报》、新华社驻西藏分社的摄影记者。然而,正如我通过对西藏文革的研究和调查,得出的结论是:“但在当时的报纸上,我们却看不到一幅批斗‘牛鬼蛇神’的照片”,实际上至今依然如此。


事实上,虽然当时并非我父亲一个人在拍摄西藏文革图景,更何况他并不是专职的摄影记者,他的相机是他自己用两年的军饷在拉萨帕廓店里购置的120蔡司伊康相机,而且他也并没有拍摄到西藏文革中所有的事件,然而,迄今为止,发布在《杀劫》一书中的近三百张由他拍摄的西藏文革照片,仍然是关于文革在西藏最全面的一批民间图片记录。但很有意思的是,从中国网站上读到“西藏现代摄影史研究者”所述:“19517月,中国人民解放军开始和平进军西藏各地,随军进藏的有二十几位随军摄影师和随军摄影记者,他们是新中国成立后最早拍摄西藏的摄影人”,并一一列举了这些摄影者的名字。而这些摄影者当中,已经出版了数百张西藏文革照片的我父亲,却不被提及。我认为这是一种有意忽略,而并非不知情。因为如果是不知情,就不会在介绍蓝志贵先生的几张西藏文革照片时,沿用我在《杀劫》里的图说。


[1]百度百科:蓝志贵

[3]同(1)。

[4]19501970:老摄影师镜头里的西藏二十年

(本文为自由亚洲特约评论

2017年9月24日星期日

唯色:文革实际上并未结束——由一次访谈继续思考文革在西藏(1)

去年8月末,纽约时报中文网发表对我的访谈。一个多月后,纽约时报英文版发表访谈的浓缩版。(网络截图)


文革实际上并未结束
——由一次访谈继续思考文革在西藏(1


/唯色


去年8月末,文化大革命五十周年之际,纽约时报中文网发表了对我的访谈,分三个部分连载:《镜头里的西藏文革(一):跟随父亲的影迹》、《镜头里的西藏文革(二):红卫兵与女活佛》、《镜头里的西藏文革(三):遗留的恐惧与羞愧》。一个多月后,纽约时报英文版发表了这个访谈的浓缩版:《The Cultural Revolution in Tibet: A Photographic Record》。中文版与英文版都发表了我父亲当年拍摄的多幅西藏文革照片。并且,作为摄影者的我父亲,他身为解放军军人的形象也第一次在媒体公开。


访谈具有重要意义,有读者在网上留言,大意是说由我父亲的摄影见证与我的文字记录,了解到毛泽东发动的文革给西藏带来的灾难之深重,确实填补了文革研究有关西藏这方面的空白。正如访谈开头所介绍的,集合了我父亲泽仁多吉于西藏文革期间(主要集中在19661970年,文革后期也有一些)所拍摄的近三百张照片,以及我依据这些照片从1999年起,在拉萨、北京等地访谈70多人,历时六年多所做的调查、采访所写的十余万字,于2006年由台湾大块文化出版的两本书,即图文书《杀劫》与口述书《西藏记忆》,被认为是“西藏文革研究的破冰之作”,其中,《杀劫》是一本“用大量图片揭露西藏地区文化在文革期间如何受到摧残的书”(应该将“西藏地区”更正为图伯特)。2012年至2014年,我用我父亲的相机,在他文革时拍照的地方再做拍摄。然后,将22张照片及补充的一万多字收入《杀劫》文革五十周年纪念新版,于去年5月由台湾大块文化再次出版。

1966年8月,在拉萨大昭寺旧日传授佛法的讲经场,
召开批斗“牛鬼蛇神”的大会。(泽仁多吉摄影)

至今,《杀劫》已被译成藏文版和日文版,《西藏记忆》已被译成法文版。而今年内,在美国将出版英文版。译者用了十年心力进行细致入微的翻译,修订者是学识渊博并对西藏历史与现实有着透彻了解的国际藏学家,我们在无数次的来来回回的讨论中,除了发现和修正原著中的个别失误之处,还发现和补充了原著中的疏漏之处。并对图片上的细节也有新的发现。比如,有一张在大昭寺旧日传授佛法的讲经场召开批斗“牛鬼蛇神”大会的照片,经放大图片仔细检视,发现之前被忽视的多个重要细节:在高台正中,挂着毛泽东的画像及一条横幅;毛像两边用汉文和藏文竖写、横写“伟大的领袖毛主席万岁”、“伟大的中国共产党万岁”;横幅上用汉文和藏文写“斗争大会”;横幅旁边及下方置有多幅毛画像;高台上正在批斗的“牛鬼蛇神”是四位旧日的贵族官员,每人被两位红卫兵按压。而这张照片值得注意的有两处:一是四位被斗者前面至少有两人在拍摄,一人在录像,一人在摄影;二是,也是至关重要的是,照片左上角,与讲经场相连接的寺院建筑的二楼拐角,至少站着三个头戴帽子(不知是不是解放军军帽)、身穿制服(解放军军装?)的男人,正注视着批斗现场。其中一人背手站立,有着中共官员当权者的姿态。所以,与其说这三人是在注视批斗现场,不如说他们是在指挥、控制、监视批斗现场更准确。


也因此,英文版的《杀劫》将是目前所有版本中最完整的。


通过电子邮件、Skype、网络电话访谈我的,是由中国去往美国留学并已定居美国的自由撰稿人罗四鸰。她的访谈提纲有水准,着实耗去我相当不短的时间来回复。主要包括了文革时期和近年所拍摄的照片内容,以及父女两代人置身的不同环境的内在联系,特别是作为调查并写作西藏文革的我,在心路历程发生的某种变化,以及与父亲之间真实存在的矛盾与纠结,等等。实际上我很感谢这位未曾谋面的访谈者。这些问题使得我再一次回顾文革对于西藏种种毁灭性的破坏力,并造成广泛而深远的影响,延续至今。最后,再次更深切地认识到,如我在重拍照片时所感受到的,文革实际上并未结束,而今天我们在拉萨看到的是一种后西藏文革的场景。


需要说明的是,这个很有见地的访谈也是让我继续深入思考文革之于西藏的一个机会。


(本文为自由亚洲特约评论) 

2016年10月4日星期二

The Cultural Revolution in Tibet: A Photographic Record

Photo
Tsering Woeser’s father, an officer in the People’s Liberation Army in Lhasa when the Cultural Revolution broke out in 1966, photographed many public attacks on Tibet’s old ruling class and religious leaders. Here, a Buddhist nun wears a sign labeling her as a counterrevolutionary. CreditTsering Dorje
In 1999, the Tibetan writer Tsering Woeser came across Wang Lixiong’s book “Sky Burial: The Fate of Tibet.” On finishing it, she sent Mr. Wang photographs taken by her father, who was with the People’s Liberation Army when it entered Tibet in the 1950s and documented the early years of the Cultural Revolution in Lhasa in the 1960s. Mr. Wang wrote back, saying, “It’s not for me, as a non-Tibetan, to use these photos to reveal history. That task can only be yours.”
Ms. Woeser began tracking down and interviewing people who appeared in the photos. This resulted in two books published by Locus in Taiwan in 2006: “Forbidden Memory: Tibet During the Cultural Revolution,” based on her father’s photographs, and “Tibet Remembered,” an oral history narrated by 23 people who appear in them. Meanwhile, Ms. Woeser had begun taking her own photos, using her father’s camera, of the places he photographed. Many were included in a new edition of “Forbidden Memory,” published this year on the 50th anniversary of the start theCultural Revolution.
Photo
Tsering Dorje standing before the Potala Palace in Lhasa in 1969, in a photograph provided by his daughter, Tsering Woeser.
Ms. Woeser was born in Lhasa in 1966 to a Tibetan mother and her father, Tsering Dorje, who was half Tibetan and half Han, the dominant ethnicity in China. But in 1970, her father, who had served as deputy commander of the Lhasa military district, was transferred to Sichuan Province. It wasn’t until 1990 that Ms. Woeser returned to Lhasa, where she became editor of the journal “Tibetan Literature.” In 2003, she published “Notes on Tibet,” a collection of essays and short stories that was soon banned by the Chinese government. She is now a freelance writer and poet based in Beijing with Mr. Wang, whom she married in 2004. In an interview, she discussed what she learned from her father’s photographs of Tibet’s experience of the Cultural Revolution.
How did your father manage to take these photos?
In 1950, Mao Zedong ordered the People’s Liberation Army into Tibet, and on the way it passed through my father’s hometown, Derge, which is in the present-day Garze Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Sichuan. At the time my father, who was only 13, was sent away by his Han father to enlist in the P.L.A. His mother was a local Tibetan. During the Cultural Revolution, my father served as an officer in the political department of the Tibet Military District. I suppose he was able to take photos because of his privileges as a P.L.A. officer.
It’s curious, however, that for all the photos that my father took, he was able to keep the photos and negatives. This certainly could not have happened if the army had assigned him to take the photos. This indicates that my father’s activity was not commissioned by the military.
Photo
On Aug. 24, 1966, in Lhasa, Buddhist scriptures were burned as part of the campaign against the “Four Olds” — old customs, old culture, old habits, old ideas. CreditTsering Dorje
Very few people had cameras then, and even fewer had the chance to take photos of public events. There were several media agencies active in Tibet then. They produced lots of documentaries, photos and reports. And yet in the newspapers and posters from then you can’t find any photos of ruined temples or “struggle sessions” against “counterrevolutionary monsters and demons.” I’ve looked at all the issues of Tibet Daily from 1966 to 1970 but can find no such photos.
What do your father’s photos show?
Mostly mass meetings and “incidents.” By mass meetings I mean large-scale gatherings such as the celebration by tens of thousands of Chairman Mao’s launching of the Cultural Revolution. Incidents include the destruction of temples and struggles against “monsters and demons.” The photos contain many identifiable figures including the Communist leaders of Tibet, the founder of the Tibetan Red Guards, individual Red Guards, as well as nobles, clergy and officials of the old Tibet society who were targeted in “struggle sessions.” In my investigations most of my efforts were focused on these people, because it’s through them that the photos have their greatest value. Over six years, I interviewed about 70 people in the photos.
How do your photographs and your father’s, taken in the same locations, differ?
In 1966 and 1967, my father took photos of mass meetings and rallies of Red Guards and the P.L.A. in front of the Potala Palace. In 2012, when I went to the same place to take photos, two self-immolations by Tibetans had taken place in Lhasa that May. As a result, the government tightened its policy of ethnic segregation and took more security measures against Tibetans, especially those from outside Lhasa. The measures were first implemented in March 2008, when protests broke out across the Tibetan region, and became more severe in 2012. As I took my photos, I noticed a curious phenomenon: the palace square was filled with men in black. They had umbrellas on their backs, which they would use to block people from taking pictures if an incident broke out. They lined up in rows and monitored the people passing by. They prohibited anyone from sitting in the square.
Photo
Tsering Woeser, with her father’s camera, in Lhasa in 2013. CreditPazu Kong
Another example: In 2014, I was standing where my father had taken photos in front of the Jokhang Temple. What did he see back then? Red Guards trying to hang Chairman Mao’s portrait on the roof of the temple, where the Chinese flag was also planted. Though I didn’t see any Mao portraits there, the flag was waving in the same place. Also, there were quite a few believers kneeling and praying, as well as a crowd of tourists fascinated by their actions. On the roof of a house diagonally across from the temple there were sharpshooters from the armed police. Ever since 2008, sharpshooters have been deployed on the roofs of buildings around the temple.
Comparing today with the Cultural Revolution, there were no believers kneeling back then, and the temple was ruined, while today the temple offers a bustling scene where believers may freely worship. But these are only superficial differences. Religious worship is still strictly controlled. Furthermore, there is now commercialized tourism, with gawking tourists who treat Tibetans like exotic decorations and Lhasa as a theme park.
Who was the founder of the Lhasa Red Guards?
Tao Changsong, born in Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province. In 1960, he graduated from East China Normal University and volunteered to move to Tibet, where he became a teacher of Chinese at Lhasa Middle School. During the Cultural Revolution he was the main force behind the creation of the Lhasa Red Guards, as well as commander of the Lhasa Revolutionary Rebels Headquarters. When the Revolutionary Committee of the Tibet Autonomous Region was formed, he became its deputy director, a position equivalent to vice chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region today. He also went to Beijing many times and met with Zhou Enlai, Jiang Qing and other key members of the Central Revolutionary Committee. In 2001, I interviewed him twice. I didn’t show him my father’s photos, assuming he might not tell me the story if he saw them, since he appears in one. It shows him at the Dalai Lama’s summer palace, the Norbulingka, leading a team of Red Guards hanging up a poster on which is written “People’s Park.”
Photo
A public rally in Lhasa to force “monsters and demons” to confess their failings. CreditTsering Dorje
There were two “rebel factions” in Lhasa during the Cultural Revolution. One was the Revolutionary Rebels Headquarters. The other was the Great Alliance of Proletarian Revolutionaries Command, or Great Alliance Command for short. The two fought each other for power. In the later period of the Cultural Revolution, the Headquarters faction lost ground, while the other faction achieved total control, and retained it even after the Cultural Revolution [which ended in 1976]. Headquarters members were purged from the party. Tao Changsong was investigated on suspicion of belonging to the “three types of people” — “people who followed the Lin Biao-Jiang Qing counterrevolutionary faction,” “people with a strong factionalist bent” and “people who engaged in looting and robbery.” After the mid-1980s, he worked at the Tibetan Academy of Social Sciences and served as assistant editor of the journal “Tibet Studies” and as deputy director of the Modern Tibetan Research Institute. Now he’s retired and lives in Chengdu and Lhasa, where he is in good standing with the government.
Mr. Tao is a lively talker with a sharp memory. He also showed his cautious side when he began having difficulty answering my questions about the Red Guards’ campaign against the “Four Olds” at the Jokhang Temple. The statement in his account that left the deepest impression on me concerned the P.L.A.’s crackdown on “second rebels” [Tibetans who revolted in 1969]. He said: “The Tibetans are too simple-minded. If you execute them they say, ‘Thank you.’ If you give them 200 renminbi they also say, ‘Thank you.’ ”
Tibet was an exception to the general practice of purging the “three types of people” after the Cultural Revolution. In Tibet there were few purges of that kind. When Hu Yaobang came to Lhasa in 1980, he put an end to the purging of the “three types.” Why? Because there were many Tibetans among them. Hu thought if you purged them, the party wouldn’t be able to find reliable agents among local Tibetans. So the party couldn’t purge them. And some of them not only were shielded from purges but even received promotions. As a result, the people who rose in power during the Cultural Revolution still dominate Tibet, whether Tibetan or Han.
Photo
Two Red Guards in Lhasa in 1966. CreditTsering Dorje
Tell us about the people in the photographs who were victims of the struggle sessions.
There were about 40 of them. They belonged to a variety of professions in the old Tibet: monks, officials, merchants, physicians, officers, estate overlords and so on. The settings included struggle sessions at mass assemblies, in the streets and at local neighborhood committees that methodically conducted their sessions by turns. The time frame was from August to September 1966. After that, the division between the factions led each to conduct its own separate struggle sessions. The people attacked in these sessions were incorporated into the “monsters and demons” unit, where they were ordered to attend long-term labor and study sessions at their assigned neighborhood committee.
What’s most interesting about these victims is that most were members of the upper class whom the Communist Party from the 1950s to the eve of the Cultural Revolution had designated as “targets to be won over.” And since they did not follow the Dalai Lama and flee the country during the 1959 uprising, the party rewarded them with many privileges. In other words, they were partners of the party. One of them, a monk, even served as an informant for the military.
But after the Cultural Revolution began they were labeled “monsters and demons” and suffered humiliating attacks. In the end they were overtaken by madness, illness and death. Some died during the Cultural Revolution, others afterward. Most of the victims died. Of the few who survived, some went abroad. Some, however, remained in Tibet, where they took up the party’s offer and joined the system to regain their high status. Today these people are found in the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference, the National People’s Congress and the Buddhist Association, where they fulfill ceremonial functions needed by the party.
Photo
A National Day celebration on Oct. 1, 1966, in Lhasa marking the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China. CreditTsering Dorje
Given the fate of most of the victims, the people I interviewed were mostly their relatives, or in some cases the disciples of victimized monks. They told me so many stories.
Such as?
There was the Lhasa nobleman Sampho Tsewang Rinzin, from one of the most renowned noble families in Tibet. Sampho began working with the party in the 1950s and benefited from that. But he was cruelly struggled against during the Cultural Revolution, as you can see in the photos. The Red Guards who were beating him made him wear the uniform of a senior minister in the Tibetan government, which as much as it made him look splendid, brought him so much humiliation and stripped him of all dignity, so that in the end he was sobbing in front of everyone. He died soon after this.
Continue reading the main story
Then there was the “female living Buddha” — an erroneous term; we call them rinpoche — Samding Dorje Phagmo Dechen Chodron. Historically there have been very few female living Buddhas in Tibet. She was the most famous. In 1959 she followed the Dalai Lama and escaped to India. But she was persuaded by party cadres to return to Tibet and was held up as a patriot who had “resolved to shun the darkness and embrace the light.” She even met with Mao. After the Cultural Revolution started she was labeled a “monster and demon” and humiliated at struggle sessions.
Photo
Ngawang Gelek, a member of the Little Red Guards, which replaced the Young Pioneers children’s organization during the Cultural Revolution, at a rally in Lhasa. He later became a militia commander and eventually a devout Buddhist. CreditTsering Dorje
In the photo where she is shown being beaten, she was only 24. She was weak then, because she had recently given birth to her third child. Her husband was the son of the great Lhasa nobleman Kashopa. The couple eventually divorced. It was her ex-husband who told me about her experiences as well as those of her parents after I showed him the photos.
Today, Dorje Phagmo is vice chairwoman of the Tibetan Autonomous Region and a member of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference Standing Committee. She often appears on television attending various conferences.
Did you interview the Red Guards in the photos?
In one of my father’s photos there is a female activist, a quite vicious one during the Cultural Revolution. She once led a team to ransack a house where she not only seized the owner’s property but set fire to manuscripts bequeathed to the owner by the great Tibetan scholar Gendun Choephel. A Tibetan scholar called this a major crime against Tibetan history and culture. Later this woman became party secretary at the Wabaling neighborhood committee. When I found her there, she looked quite insignificant. As soon as I brought up the Cultural Revolution, her facial expression immediately changed. She refused to give an interview or let me take her photo.
There was also a former monk I interviewed who had smashed Buddhist stupas and burned scriptures during the Cultural Revolution. Afterward, he volunteered to be a janitor at the Jokhang Temple and worked there for 17 years. He told me: “If it weren’t for the Cultural Revolution, I think I would have lived my entire life as a good monk. I would have worn monk’s robes. The temples would still be there. Inside the temples I would have devotedly read scriptures. But the Cultural Revolution came. The robes could no longer be worn. Though I have never looked for a woman or abandoned monastic life, I am not fit to wear the robes again. This is the most painful thing in my life.”