The serfdom in Tibet controversy is a prolonged public disagreement over the extent and nature of serfdom in Tibet prior to the annexation of Tibet into the People's Republic of China (PRC) in 1951. The debate is political in nature, with some arguing that the ultimate goal on the Chinese side is to legitimize Chinese control of the territory now known as the  Tibet Autonomous Region or Xizang Autonomous Region, and others arguing that the ultimate goal on the Western side is to weaken or undermine the Chinese state. The argument is that Tibetan culture, government, and society were barbaric prior to the PRC takeover of Tibet and that this only changed due to PRC policy in the region. The pro-Tibetan independence movement argument is that this is a misrepresentation of history created as a political tool in order to justify the Sinicization of Tibet.

Despite such debate about the intention of Chinese descriptions of pre-Communist Tibet, it is known that the Tibetan class system divided the population hierarchically into laity (), noble laity (), and monks, with further subdivisions within the laity. There was also a caste of untouchables known as , who performed work that was considered unclean, including fishing, metalworking, and prostitution, much as with the Indian groups identified as dalit in the present day.

Chinese government claims commonly portray Tibet from 1912 to 1951 as a feudal society and both the 13th and 14th Dalai Lamas as slave owners. These claims further highlight statements by the PRC that, prior to 1959, 95% of Tibetans lived in feudal serfdom, and cite cases of abuse and cruelty which are allegedly inherent to the traditional Tibetan system.

The idea of Tibet and the concept of serfdom

One of the central points of contention in the debate about labour and human rights in the historical region of Tibet before and after its incorporation into the modern state of the People's Republic of China is the very definition of Tibet and serfdom itself, with some scholars claiming that the debate is framed around Eurocentric, Sinocentric and anachronistic ideas about statehood and society which are projected onto the history of the area in a way that distorts understanding. Some western scholars reject claims of "serfdom in Tibet" outright based on the view that "Tibet" cannot be defined as one political entity or social system; its political and socioeconomic structures have varied greatly over time and between sub-districts. The various polities comprising Tibet have changed significantly over the past 2,000 years, and even during the modern period there have been dramatic changes in what Tibet is, as anthropologist Geoff Childs writes: "[Tibet] has undergone numerous political transformations from a unified empire (640–842) incorporating parts of what are now Nepal, India, Pakistan, and several provinces of China (Gansu, Xinjiang, Sichuan, Yunnan), to a collection of independent and sometimes antagonistic kingdoms and polities associated with various monasteries (842–1248), to protectorate under the power of an expanding Mongol empire (1248–1368), back to a collection of independent and sometimes antagonistic kingdoms and polities associated with various monasteries (1368–1642), to a centralized state under the clerical administration of the Dalai Lamas (1642–1720), to a protectorate of the Manchu Qing Dynasty (1720–1911), and finally to a nation having de facto independence under the clerical administration of the Dalai Lamas (1911–1951)"Although the central leadership in Lhasa had authority of these areas for various periods, some Western writers claim that this did not imply the kind of political control seen in modern Western states. According to Luciano Petech, "K'ams [the Kham region, largely synonymous with the province of Xikang which was abolished in 1950] was practically independent of Lhasa under its great lamas" in the 18th century CE. Furthermore, the areas of Qinghai with large Tibetan populations were not continuously ruled by Lhasa, including in the period leading up to the establishment of the PRC (in the late 1930s and 1940s) when the Kuomintang Muslim warlord Ma Bufang ruled Qinghai within the Republic of China (ROC).

The definition of Tibet has been contested with a map of competing claims identifying six distinct types of Tibetan regions claimed by various entities. In the Qing Dynasty (1644-1912) and in the ROC (1912–1949), the part of Tibet governed by Lhasa was limited to the modern Tibet Autonomous Region, and did not include the Kham (Xikang) Province of China. Meanwhile, the western part of Xikang (i.e. Qamdo) and Qinghai was only occupied by Lhasa in the Tibet-Kham War which lasted from the 1910s to 1930s.

Generally, the government of the PRC also limits Tibet to the area it has designated the Tibet Autonomous Region, consisting of the traditional areas of Ü, Tsang, Ngari, along with Qamdo (i.e. the western Kham/Xikang) which was legally incorporated into the TAR when Xikang Province was abolished by the NPC in 1955. The Tibetan government in exile claims that other ethnically Tibetan areas to the east and to the north also belong to Tibet, i.e. "Greater Tibet". These areas now respectively belong to Qinghai Province, Gansu Province, Sichuan Province and Yunnan Province of China. Scholarship frequently represents a limited survey, restricted to the central region of Tibet, and may not accurately represent the whole of cultural Tibet or all Tibetan speaking peoples.

Discussing the social structure of Tibet inevitably leads to difficulties with defining terms. Not only may serf and feudalism be Western terms inappropriate for Asian use but the geography and peoples of Tibet vary according to interpreter. The lack of agreement of the various sides as to terminology highlights that the "serfdom in Tibet" controversy is a politicised debate, with the term "feudal serfdom" largely being used by the People's Republic of China as a justification for their taking control of Tibet. According to the PRC:...there was a historically imperative need for the progress of Tibetan society and the welfare of the Tibetan people to expel the imperialists and shake off the yoke of feudal serfdom. The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought hope for the deeply distressed Tibetan people. In conforming to the law of historical development and the interests of the Tibetan people, the Central People's Government worked actively to bring about Tibet's peaceful liberation. After that, important policies and measures were adopted for Tibet's Democratic Reform, regional autonomy, large-scale modernization and reform and opening-up.
However, the Tibetan Government-in-Exile responds: ...the Chinese justifications make no sense. First of all, international law does not accept justifications of this type. No country is allowed to invade, occupy, annex and colonize another country just because its social structure does not please it. Secondly, the PRC is responsible for bringing more suffering in the name of liberation. Thirdly, necessary reforms were initiated and Tibetans are quite capable of doing so.

Competing versions of Tibetan history
It is difficult to find academic consensus on the nature of society in Tibetan history. Sources on the history of Tibet are available from both pro-Chinese and pro-Tibetan writers.

Pro-Chinese materials may be published by mainstream Western publishers, or within the People's Republic of China. Tibetan materials, similarly, may be published by mainstream Western publishers, or by the Tibetan Government in Exile. Both sides hope to persuade foreign readers to support their own point of view through these publications.

Many of the pro-Chinese works in English on the subject were translated from Chinese. Asian studies scholar John Powers concludes that ideology was the most powerful influence on the translations: "In contemporary China, the Communist Party strictly controls the presentation of history, and several formal resolutions have been issued by the Central Committee, which are intended to guide historians in the "correct" interpretation of historical events and actors."

Western authors' writings on Tibetan history are sometimes controversial. For example, whilst Hugh Richardson, who lived in Lhasa in the 1930s and 1940s, before the takeover by the PRC in 1951, writes in Tibet and Its History that Chinese versions of Tibetan history are contemptible and he considers the Chinese rule brutal and illegal, Israel Epstein, a naturalized Chinese citizen born in Poland who similarly claims the authority of first-hand knowledge, this knowledge was gained post PRC annexation following the Chinese takeover of Tibet and must be viewed as Pro-PRC, supported Chinese rule. There are few academic assessments of the recent history of Tibet. Anthropologist and historian Melvyn Goldstein, who is fluent in Tibetan and has done considerable fieldwork with Tibetans in exile and in Tibet, considers pre-1950 Tibet to have been a feudal theocracy impaired by corrupt and incompetent leaders. It was de facto independent of China from 1911 to 1949, but not recognized as de jure independent of China by any nation, even its protective power Great Britain.

The Chinese side seeks to persuade international perception as to the appropriate nature and justifiability of Chinese rule in Tibet. Their position is that Tibet truly and historically belongs to China, that affairs of Tibet are internal matters, and Tibetans seek to internationalize their cause, in part by convincing readers that Tibet was independent. Concentrating as it does on questions of national sovereignty, the official position of the Tibetan Government in Exile is more moderate in tone than that of some of its more extreme supporters who conflate the rule of the lamas with Tibetan Buddhist ideals, seeking to promote a Buddhist dogma that competes with the Marxist dogma of "feudal serfdom" by portraying Tibet under the lamas as, in Robert Thurman's words: "a mandala of the peaceful, perfected universe".

Tibetologist Robert Barnett writes:

"Chinese references to preliberation conditions in Tibet thus appear to be aimed at creating popular support for Beijing's project in Tibet. These claims have particular resonance among people who share the assumption—based on nineteenth-century Western theories of "social evolution" that are still widely accepted in China—that certain forms of society are "backward" and should be helped to evolve by more "advanced" societies. This form of prejudice converges with some earlier Chinese views and with vulgar Marxist theories that imagine a vanguard movement liberating the oppressed classes or nationalities in a society, whether or not those classes agree that they are oppressed. Moreover, the Chinese have to present that oppression as very extensive, and that society as very primitive, in order to explain why there were no calls by the Tibetan peasantry for Chinese intervention on their behalf.

The question of Tibet's social history is therefore highly politicized, and Chinese claims in this respect are intrinsic to the functioning of the PRC, and not some free act of intellectual exploration. They have accordingly to be treated with caution. From a human rights point of view, the question of whether Tibet was feudal in the past is irrelevant. A more immediate question is why the PRC does not allow open discussion of whether Tibet was feudal or oppressive. Writers and researchers in Tibet face serious repercussions if they do not concur with official positions on issues such as social conditions in Tibet prior to its "liberation," and in such a restrictive climate, the regime's claims on this issue have little credibility."

The political debate
Chinese sources portray Tibet before 1950 as feudal serfdom in which serfs suffered terribly under the despotic rule of lamas and aristocrats. Some Tibetan sources describe the people as happy, content, and devoted to Buddhism. On the other hand, the Tibetan Phuntsok Wangyal, who founded the Tibetan Communist Party in the 1940s, describes the old system as unequal and exploitative.

One of the earliest publications in English to apply the term "serf" to Tibet was Marxist journalist Anna Louise Strong's work from 1960, When Serfs Stood up in Tibet, published by the Chinese government. Another seminal promoter of the term is historian A. Tom Grunfeld, who based his writings on the work of British explorers of the region, in particular Sir Charles Bell. It has been argued that his book is not supported by traditional Tibetan, Chinese, or Indian histories, that it contains inaccuracies and distortions, and that Grunfeld's extracts from Bell were taken out of context to mislead readers. Grunfeld is a polarizing figure for the Chinese, who praise his work, his scholarship, and his integrity; and the Tibetans, who match this praise with condemnation, calling him a "sinologist" who lacks authority on Tibetan history due to his inability to read Tibetan and his not having been to Tibet before writing his book. Political scientist Michael Parenti's 2003 (revised in 2007) essay Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth was largely based on the preceding work of Stuart and Roma Gelder (Timely Rain: Travels in New Tibet 1964), Strong and Grunfeld.

Melvyn Goldstein has produced many works on Tibetan society since the 1960s and used "serf" to translate the Tibetan term mi ser (literally "yellow person"; also translated as peasant") and to describe both the landless peasant classes and the wealthier land holding and taxpaying class of families. He has written, "with the exception of about 300 noble families, all laymen and laywomen in Tibet were serfs (Mi ser) bound via ascription by parallel descent to a particular lord (dPon-po) though an estate, in other words sons were ascribed to their father's lord but daughters to their mother's lord." In his 1989 book A History of Modern Tibet Goldstein argued 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 an alternative which, despite retaining the concept of lordship, partially freed the mi ser from obligations to a landed estate, usually for an annual fee. In 1997 Goldstein used the term "serf" in the following, more cautious, way "...monastic and aristocratic elites ... held most of the land in Tibet in the form of feudal estates with hereditarily bound serflike peasants." Powers has characterized Goldstein as "generally pro-China" but also called his History of Modern Tibet "the most balanced treatment". Goldstein describes himself as having conservative political views. According to William Monroe Coleman, China misrepresents Goldstein's usage as support for their version of Tibetan history.

Goldstein distinguished serfdom from feudalism, and applied the term "serfdom" but not "feudalism" to old Tibet. Furthermore, he made some effort to avoid appearing to support China's invasion of Tibet, writing that the PRC left the traditional system in place, not only after the invasion of 1950, but even after the Dalai Lama's flight into exile in 1959. He pointed out that in 1950, Chinese rhetoric claimed that China was freeing Tibet, not from serfdom, but from imperialist influence. Nevertheless, his usage has been misinterpreted as support for the Chinese Marxist viewpoint, in which feudalism and serfdom are inseparable, and old Tibet is consistently described as "feudal serfdom".

Not all writers who use the term "serfdom" to describe the pre-1950 society in Tibet do so pejoratively. Pico Iyer, a journalist whose father is a friend of the Dalai Lama and who has himself been in private conversation with him for over thirty years writes: "Almost as soon as he came into exile, in 1959, the Dalai Lama seized the chance to get rid of much of the red tape and serfdom that had beset Tibet in the past". The Dalai Lama himself used the term "serf" in 1991, saying: "The relationship between landlord and serf was much milder in Tibet than in China and conditions for the poor were much less harsh."

Several Tibetan sources portray Tibetan peasants and workers to support their own view of a Tibetan people who were not only independent of China, but found the Chinese alien and incomprehensible, and who suffered genocide under Chinese rule. Richardson, the British Trade Envoy to Tibet in the 1940s, agrees with Tibetan authors, stating there was little difference between the rich and the poor.

Journalist Thomas Laird notes that scholars debate the applicability of these terms to Tibet, and struggle with a lack of sufficient data. Journalist Barbara Crossette asserted in 1998 that "scholars of Tibet mostly agree that there has been no systematic serfdom in Tibet in centuries."

The Tibetan Government-in-Exile says about conditions in Tibet pre-Communism:
Traditional Tibetan society was, by no means, perfect and was in need of changes. The Dalai Lama and other Tibetan leaders have admitted as much. That is the reason why the Dalai Lama initiated far-reaching reforms in Tibet as soon as he assumed temporal authority. The traditional Tibetan society, however, was not nearly as bad as China would have us believe.

The academic debate
The academic debate as to whether "serf" is an applicable term for a society such as pre-1950 Tibet continues to this day. Goldstein and Miller's exchanges in an academic journal between 1986 and 1989 were a notable part of this debate. The applicability of the concept of serfdom to Tibet was debated between Melvyn Goldstein and anthropologist Beatrice D. Miller of Wisconsin University over a series of five articles in the Tibet Journal. The debate was initiated by Goldstein in the XI edition of the Tibet Journal, in which he defended his description of the features of Tibetan society as being very comparable to European serfdom. He based the comparison on the features of serfdom described by French historian Marc Bloch including:

 The status was hereditary.
 A serf, unlike a slave, had rights and possessions but did not own productive resources (land).
 The lord had the legal right to command his serfs, including judicial authority over him or her.

Goldstein argued that Tibetan society fulfilled all these requirements, and argued in detail against the specific diverging opinions of fellow scholars Miller, Micheal, Dargyay and Aziz. He underpinned his assertions by research, first hand accounts and case studies, and responded to criticisms which had been voiced by these researchers in the preceding years.

Only Miller responded in the next The Tibet Journal, in a short letter, in 1987. She acknowledged Goldstein's scholarship, stating "Goldstein's article ... cannot be faulted. It is an outstanding example of his exemplary collection of fine data." She disagreed however with his interpretation, specifically the use of the word "serf" and challenged him by asserting the following:

 That a lord also had obligations to the central government, so the specific obligations of a peasant (Tibetan: "mi ser") to a lord were only examples of societal obligations which everyone had.
 That the obligations owed to a lord were by the family collective, and not "personal" or individual.
 That the obligations of a peasant were not so onerous as it was easy to run away.

In the following issue Goldstein replied in brief arguing:

 The nature of the lord's relation with the central government was radically different from the peasant/lord relation and not relevant to the peasant/lord relation he was discussing.
 While corvee obligations fell primarily on households, a peasant's legal status very much related to his person was hereditary and not rescindable.
 He pointed out that running away was illegal, punishable, and that European serfs also ran away.
 He strongly disagreed with Miller's assertion that the peasant/lord relation was fundamentally contractual.

In a later publication and response Goldstein agreed to differ on the use of the word "serf" to prevent a terminological discussion distracting from the examination of societal conditions. He argued that running away was an act of desperation severing familial, social and economic ties. He discussed the form of partial manumission known as "human lease" and argued that: it only temporarily freed from daily service but not occasional service at the lord's discretion; the payment of an annual fee decided by the lord was required; it was revocable at will by the lord. Thus he felt it was a very weak form of manumission.

Coleman, integrating Goldstein's research with subsequent work done by other scholars including Rebecca French, Graham Clarke, and Franz Michael, argues that Goldstein overemphasized the de jure status of the mi ser at the expense of de facto characteristics – a high degree of social and economic mobility, and hence autonomy; frequently successful negotiations with lords to improve their status; and flight from untenable situations such as unpayable debts and exorbitant labor requirements. He concludes that "serf" is a misleading term for the Tibetan mi ser.

Human rights in Tibet

In the political debate regarding the nature of pre-1950 Tibet, Chinese sources assert human rights abuses as a justification for the Communist invasion. Both before and after the Communist takeover of 1950 there have been examples of human rights abuses, both state-sanctioned and otherwise. The political debate associated with the Serfdom in Tibet controversy rests on whether these incidents justify the positions of the opposing parties. Sympathisers of the Chinese government's position view the pre-1950s abuses as justifying the Communist regime in the Tibetan Autonomous Region. Supporters of the Tibetan Government in Exile argue that the 13th Dalai Lama had already effected reforms which were ahead of the world at the time, and that further reforms were underway, and no outside intervention was justified.

Prior to 1950
Judicial mutilation – principally the gouging out of eyes, and the cutting off of hands or feet – was formalized under the Sakya school as part of the 13th century Tibetan legal code, and was used as a legal punishment until being declared illegal in 1913 by a proclamation of the 13th Dalai Lama. In this same reform, the Dalai Lama banned capital punishment, making Tibet one of the first countries to do so (preceding, for instance, Switzerland, Britain, and France). The 14th Dalai Lama's brother Jigme Norbu reports that, along with these reforms, living conditions in jails were improved, with officials being designated to see that these conditions and rules were maintained."

Incidents of mutilation have been recorded in Tibet in the period between the start of the 20th century and the Chinese occupation. Tibetan communist Phuntso Wangye recalled his anger at seeing freshly severed human ears hanging from the gate of the county headquarters in Damshung north of Lhasa in 1945.

Robert W. Ford, one of the few Westerners to have been appointed by the Government of Tibet at the time of de facto independent Tibet, spent five years in Tibet, from 1945 to 1950, before his arrest by the invading Chinese army. In his book Wind Between the Worlds: Captured in Tibet, he writes

Former Nazi Party member Heinrich Harrer, who lived in Tibet at the same time (1944 to 1951), wrote in his book "Return to Tibet" that these treatments had already ceased at that time:

As Tibetan Buddhism prohibits killing, mutilation and other extremely cruel punishments were widely used instead in old Tibet. The mutilation of top level Tibetan official Lungshar in 1934 gave an example. Tsepon Lungshar, an official educated in England, introduced reform in the 1920s; after losing a political struggle the reformist was sentenced to be blinded by having his eyeballs pulled out. "The method involved the placement of a smooth, round yak's knucklebone on each of the temples of the prisoner. These were then tied by leather thongs around the head and tightened by turning the thongs with a stick on top of the head until the eyeballs popped out. The mutilation was terribly bungled. Only one eyeball popped out, and eventually the ragyaba had to cut out the other eyeball with a knife. Boiling oil was then poured into the sockets to cauterize the wound." This was sufficiently unusual that the untouchables (ragyapba) carrying it out had no previous experience of the correct technique and had to rely on instructions heard from their parents. An attempt was made at anesthetizing the alleged criminal with intoxicants before performing the punishment, which unfortunately did not work well.

As late as 1949 the Tibetan government still sentenced people to mutilation. When a CIA officer Douglas Mackiernan was killed against official entry permit, six Tibetan border guards were tried and sentenced in Lhasa. "The leader was to have his nose and both ears cut off. The man who fired the first shot was to lose both ears. A third man was to lose one ear, and the others were to get 50 lashes each." The sentence was reduced to 200, 50 and 25 lashes, respectively, after another CIA agent Frank Bessac requested leniency.

Whipping was legal and common as punishment in Tibet including in the 20th century, also for minor infractions and outside judicial processes. Whipping could also have fatal consequences, as in the case of the trader Gyebo Sherpa subjected to the severe corca whipping for selling cigarettes. He died from his wounds 2 days later in the Potala prison. The Tibetan tibetologist Tashi Tsering records being whipped as a 13-year-old for missing a performance as a dancer in the Dalai Lama's dance troop in 1942, until the skin split and the pain became excruciating.

The People's Republic of China states that human rights were 'severely infringed upon' by the Dalai Lama's administration. The evidence for these accusations is disputed.

According to writer Rebecca French, Tibetans viewed criminal offenses as uncommon, but there are few records to establish frequency. However, Tibetans also believe that theft and banditry were common especially along trade routes. Because it was considered harsh by most Tibetans, they tended to seek alternative settlements and leniency from local courts instead of pursuing government action in disputes. Local officials were also more likely to find peaceful outcomes in a community setting than to resort to harsher government resolution.

Political power could play a role in a judicial process in Tibet. In the eye gouging case above the alleged criminal was a deposed member of the Kashag called Lungshar who had proposed democratic reform. The charge was planning a coup and the attempted murder of another Kashag member who opposed reform. It was strenuously denied by the accused. Conviction was based on the evidence of one informer who claimed to have seen a document which was never produced. He was richly rewarded, and the trial seems to have been a show trial by traditionalists seeking to prevent reform. From arrest to execution of the sentence was only ten days, limiting the possibilities of appeal.

One evidence of Chinese brutality in Eastern Tibet was reported by an American missionary in the following terms:
There is no method of torture known that is not practiced in here on these Tibetans, slicing, boiling, tearing asunder and all …To sum up what China is doing here in eastern Tibet, the main things are collecting taxes, robbing, oppressing, confiscating, and allowing her representatives to burn and loot and steal.
Believing that the American missionary's account might be a mistake, Sir Eric Teichman, a British diplomat, noted that whatever brutality existed, it was "in no way due to any action of the Chinese government in Peking or the provincial authorities in Szechuana."

Slavery
Israel Epstein wrote that prior to the Communist takeover, poverty in Tibet was so severe that in some of the worst cases peasants had to hand over children to the manor as household slaves or nangzan, because they were too poor to raise them. On the other hand, Laird asserted that in the 1940s Tibetan peasants were well off and immune to famine, whereas starvation was common in China. According to other sources, the so-called "slaves" were domestic servants (nangtsen) and managers of estates in reality.

In 1904, a British expeditionary force occupied the Chumbi Valley for four years, in the border region adjacent to Bhutan and India. Sir Charles Bell was put in charge of the district from September 1904 to November 1905 and wrote that slavery was still practiced in Chumbi but had declined greatly over the previous thirty years. He noted that only a dozen or two dozen slaves remained, unlike nearby Bhutan where slavery was more widespread. Bell further remarked, "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."

Tibetan welfare after the Chinese takeover
Just as the Chinese and the Tibetan exile community argue over whether common Tibetans suffered or flourished before the Chinese takeover, they take diametrically opposing views on the fate of ordinary Tibetans since 1950. This is understood to be highly important in persuading readers of the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Chinese rule. Chinese sources in English claim rapid progress for prosperous, free, and happy Tibetans participating in democratic reforms. Exiled Tibetans, on the other hand, write of Chinese genocide in Tibet, comparing the Chinese to the Nazis. After the Cultural Revolution, according to Powers, scholar Warren Smith, whose work became focused on Tibetan history and politics after spending five months in Tibet in 1982, portrays the Chinese as chauvinists who believe they are superior to the Tibetans, and claims that the Chinese use torture, coercion and starvation to control the Tibetans.

The Tibet Autonomous Region is much poorer than other provinces of China. In 1980, in order to help Tibet out of poverty, the 1st Tibet Work Forum (moderated by Hu Yaobang, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party), decided to give the Tibet Autonomous Region financial support, in order to build a "united, prosperous, civilized new Tibet". After this Forum, in the Tibet Autonomous Region, all taxes on agriculture and animal husbandry were waived, while other provinces had to wait until 2006 for the same. The old "people's commune" economic system was dismantled (while in other provinces it was ended in 1985), so farmland started to be used by the household, and livestock started to be owned and used by the household. In the People's Republic of China, the Tibet Autonomous Region is the only provincial level administrative region that enjoys some tax incentives, and after 1988 is the only provincial level administrative region that receives growing substantial quota subsidies from the central government. Under the "partner assistance" policy, all the rich provinces and municipalities directly under the Central Government, most of the Central Government organs, and some central enterprises respectively assist the prefectures and cities of the Tibet Autonomous Region. With this assistance, in 1988, the Tibet Autonomous Region eliminated its fiscal deficit for the first time in history. As the only provincial level "poverty-stricken areas which lie in vast, contiguous stretches" in the People's Republic of China, the Tibet Autonomous Region developed a lot of anti-poverty programs, and the impoverished population has been shrinking substantially. However, there are still many difficulties in poverty reduction.Until the end of 2012, the social security system in the Tibet Autonomous Region has been completely established. This system not only includes ordinary people, but also all the 29,000 monks and nuns of Tibetan Buddhism in the Tibet Autonomous Region.

There is also evidence of human rights infringements, including the 2006 Nangpa La shootings. See human rights in the People's Republic of China and Human rights in Tibet (include all the Tibetan areas) for an overview. The Human Rights Watch World Report 2008: Events in China 2007 states:
Widespread and numerous instances of repression target ordinary citizens, monks, nuns, and even children in an effort to quash alleged "separatism." Seven Tibetan boys in Gansu province were detained for over a month in early September after they allegedly wrote slogans on the walls of a village police station and elsewhere calling for the return of the Dalai Lama and a free Tibet. Ronggyal Adrak was detained and charged under state security offenses by police on August 1 after he called for the Dalai Lama's return at a horse race festival in Sichuan province. He is awaiting trial. The Chinese government has failed to bring to justice those responsible for the shooting death by People's Armed Police officers of a 17-year-old nun, Kelsang Namtso, while trying to cross the border into Nepal on September 30, 2006.

It is notable in this report that most of the examples are not in the Tibet Autonomous Region, but in other provinces of China, such as Gansu Province and Sichuan Province (Tibetan areas in Sichuan are the eastern part of Kham). These areas (i.e. the Tibetan areas in Sichuan Province, Gansu Province, Yunnan Province and Qinghai Province) were not included in political Tibet, so they were not involved in the Serfs' Emancipation, which was in the Tibet Autonomous Region. During the "reform and opening up" after 1978, when the central government of the PRC gave numerous support policies and substantial financial support to the Tibet Autonomous Region, the Tibetan areas in the four provinces did not get the same. Although some of them (such as the Dêqên Tibetan Autonomous Prefecture in Yunnan) are rich enough, others of them are not rich, and some of them in Sichuan, Gansu and Qinghai are poor enough. The Tibetan areas in the four provinces ask the central government to benefit them as the Tibet Autonomous Region. And the poverty in these areas makes some of their Tibetan residents support the idea of "Greater Tibet" which is claimed by Tibetan exile groups.

In 2010, on the 5th Tibet Work Forum, the central government declared its intention to make the Tibetan areas in the four provinces steadily progress as well as the Tibet Autonomous Region. The goal is to bring the Tibet Autonomous Region and the Tibetan areas in the four provinces in line together with the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in an all-around way in 2020.

Comparison to other regions

Debate continues as to whether pre-1950 Tibetan society was especially oppressive or was comparable to, or better than, similar social structures in nearby regions. According to the Tibetan Government-in-Exile: "In terms of social mobility and wealth distribution, independent Tibet compared favourably with most Asian countries" the fact that most Dalai Lamas, including Thubten Gyatso, 13th Dalai Lama and Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama, came from peasant families being cited as an example of this. Travelers who witnessed conditions in both China and Tibet in the 1940s found the Tibetan peasants to be far better off than their Chinese counterparts. Academics debate whether tribal cultures, such as the Mongolian nomadic steppe culture, are feudal in nature. Much of Mongolian, Tibetan and Chinese political history is inter-related but the extent of their shared social structures is uncertain.

In 1958, neighbouring Bhutan abolished slavery and feudalism as part of modernization reforms at the behest of its Third King Jigme Dorji Wangchuck, who ascended to the throne in 1952 at the age of 25. Jigme Dorji enacted legal reforms, awarding citizenship and outright ownership of land to former slaves. Until then, slavery and serfdom were a common legal, economic, and social institution. They were the backbone of Bhutan's pre-monetary economy.

According to the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development, bonded labor and other forms of economic exploitation currently exist in nearby regions including India, Nepal, and several Chinese provinces. Kamaiya, the bonded labour system in neighbouring Nepal, was formally abolished in the year 2000. In 2007 Shanxi, China was the scene of its own slave scandal that turned out to involve human trafficking and slave labor in Hebei, Guangdong and Xinjiang provinces as well. According to the U.S. Dept of State "Trafficking in Persons Report 2008," Bangladesh, Nepal, Mongolia and Pakistan are all Tier 2 countries, with China and India both on the Tier 2 watchlist. However no local regions are in Tier 3.

See also
2007 Chinese slave scandal
Battle of Chamdo
Serfs Emancipation Day
Tibetan sovereignty debate
Tibetan Uprising Day

Notes

References

Barnett, Robert, [http://info-buddhism.com/Human-Rights-in-Tibet-before-1959_Robert_Barnett.html 19: What were the conditions regarding human rights in Tibet before democratic reform? (Questions 12, 13, and 92, 2001)] in: Blondeau, Anne-Marie and Buffetrille, Katia (eds). Authenticating Tibet: Answers to China's 100 Questions (2008) University of California Press.  (cloth);  (paper).
Bell, Charles. Tibet Past and Present

Crossette, Barbara (1998) The World: Searching for Tibet; The Shangri-La That Never Was in The New York Times 5 July 1998
Dalai Lama, Freedom in Exile (NY: HarperPerennial edition, 1991)
Epstein, Israel. Tibet Transformed (1983) New World Press.

French, Rebecca Redwood The Golden Yoke: The Legal Cosmology of Buddhist Tibet (1995) Cornell University Press.

Goldstein, Melvyn. Central Asiatic Journal (1971). Taxation and the Structure of a Tibetan village.
Goldstein, Melvyn C. Reexamining Choice, Dependency and Command in the Tibetan Social System: "Tax Appendages" and Other Landless Serfs. The Tibet Journal 11, no. 4 (1986) pp. 79–112. Available online at
Goldstein, Melvyn C. A History of Modern Tibet, 1913–1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State (1989) University of California Press.
Goldstein, Melvyn C. The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama (1997) University of California Press.
Goldstein, Melvyn C., Tsering, Tashi, and Siebenschuh, William. The Struggle for Modern Tibet: The Autobiography of Tashi Tsering (1997) East Gate.
Goldstein, Melvyn C., Sherap, Dawei, and Siebenschuh, William. A Tibetan Revolutionary: The Political Life and Times of Bapa Phüntso Wangye (2004) UC Press.
Iyer, Pico. The Open Road: The Global Journey of the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (2008) Bloomsbury.
Laird, Thomas. The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama (2006) Grove Press.
Norbu, Thubten Jigme and Turnbull, Colin M. Tibet: An account of the history, the religion and the people of Tibet (1968) Touchstone Books. New York.
Petech, Luciano. China and Tibet in Early Eighteenth Century: History of the Establishment of the Chinese Protectorate in Tibet (1973) Hyperion Press.
Pinfold, John. Tibet World Bibliographical Series (1991)
Powers, John. History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China (2004) Oxford University Press.
Smith, Warren W., Jr. Tibetan Nation: A History Of Tibetan Nationalism And Sino-Tibetan Relations (1997) Westview press.

External links
The Goldstein and Miller Debate on "Reexamining Choice, Dependency and Command In The Tibetan Social System: 'Tax Appendages' and Other Landless Serfs"

Annexation of Tibet by the People's Republic of China
Buddhism-related controversies
Controversies in Tibet
Feudalism in Asia
Political science
Politics of Tibet
Serfdom
Tibetan independence movement
Rural society in China

Serfdom in Tibet controversy


Superman III is a 1983 superhero film directed by Richard Lester from a screenplay by David Newman and Leslie Newman based on the DC Comics character Superman. It is the third installment in the Superman film series and a sequel to Superman II (1980). The film features a cast of Christopher Reeve, Richard Pryor, Jackie Cooper, Marc McClure, Annette O'Toole, Annie Ross, Pamela Stephenson, Robert Vaughn, and Margot Kidder.

Although the film recouped its budget of $39 million, it proved less successful than the first two Superman films, both financially and critically. While harsh criticism focused on the film's comedic and campy tone, as well as on the casting and performance of Pryor, the special effects and Christopher Reeve's performance as Superman were praised.

A sequel, Superman IV: The Quest for Peace, was released in July 1987.

Plot

The Metropolis-based conglomerate Webscoe hires Gus Gorman, a talented computer programmer. Gus embezzles from his employer through salami slicing, which brings him to the attention of CEO Ross Webster. Webster is intrigued by Gus' potential to help him financially. Webster, his sister Vera, and Webster's girlfriend Lorelei blackmail Gus into helping him.

At the Daily Planet, Clark Kent convinces Perry White to let him and Jimmy Olsen visit Smallville for Clark's high-school reunion, while fellow reporter and Clark's unrequited romantic interest Lois Lane leaves for a Bermuda vacation. En route, as Superman, Kent extinguishes a fire in a chemical plant containing unstable beltric acid, which produces corrosive vapor when superheated.

At the reunion, Clark reunites with childhood friend Lana Lang, a divorcée with a young son named Ricky. Clark is harassed by Brad Wilson, his former bully and Lana's ex-boyfriend. Later, while having a picnic with Lana, Superman saves an unconscious Ricky from being killed by a combine harvester.

Infuriated by Colombia's refusal to do business with him, Webster orders Gus to command Vulcan, an American weather satellite, to create a tornado to destroy Colombia's coffee crop, allowing Webster to corner the market. Gus travels to Smallville to use a Webscoe subsidiary to reprogram the satellite. Although Vulcan creates a devastating storm, Superman neutralizes it. Seeing Superman as a threat to his plans, Webster orders Gus to fabricate Kryptonite. Gus uses Vulcan to locate and analyze Krypton's debris. As one of the elements of Kryptonite is unknown, he substitutes tar.

Lana convinces Superman to appear at Ricky's birthday party, but Smallville turns it into a town celebration. Gus and Vera, disguised as Army officers, give Superman the flawed Kryptonite as an award. Although it has no immediate effect, Superman becomes selfish, and then commits petty acts of vandalism such as straightening the Leaning Tower of Pisa and blowing out the Olympic Flame.

Gus asks Webster to build the world's most sophisticated supercomputer; the CEO agrees, if Gus creates an energy crisis by directing all oil tankers to the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. When the captain of one tanker insists on maintaining his original course, Lorelei seduces Superman, persuading him to waylay the tanker and breach its double hull, causing an oil spill. The villains decamp to the supercomputer's location in Glen Canyon.

Superman suffers a nervous breakdown and splits into two beings: the immoral, corrupted dark Superman and the moral, mild-mannered Clark Kent. The two fight in a junkyard, with Clark eventually defeating his evil self. Regaining his sanity, Superman repairs the damage he caused in the oil spill and heads west to deal with the villains. After defending himself from exploding rockets and an ASALM missile, Superman confronts Webster, Vera, and Lorelei. The supercomputer identifies Superman's weakness and unleashes a beam of pure Kryptonite.

Guilt-ridden and horrified by the notion of "going down in history as the man who killed Superman", Gus destroys the Kryptonite ray with a firefighter's axe. Superman escapes, but the computer becomes self-aware, defending itself against Gus's attempts to disable it. The computer transforms Vera into a cyborg that attacks her brother and Lorelei with beams of energy that immobilize them. Superman returns with beltric acid, which the supercomputer believes is not dangerous. The intense heat emitted by the supercomputer causes the acid to become volatile, destroying it. Superman leaves Webster and his cronies for the authorities, but thanks Gus for saving his life. The pair fly off to a coal mine  where Superman transforms coal into a diamond for Lana. Gus declines to return to Metropolis, deciding to make a fresh start in West Virginia.

As Clark, Superman visits Lana after she moves to Metropolis. A drunken Brad attacks Clark believing he was proposing to her, but Clark defeats him without revealing his secret identity. Lana's new job as Perry White's secretary surprises Lois Lane, who returns from her vacation with an article about corruption in Bermuda, and has a newfound respect for Clark after reading his story. Before lunch with Lana, Superman restores the Leaning Tower of Pisa and flies into the sunrise for further adventures.

Cast
 Christopher Reeve as Clark Kent / Superman: After discovering his origins in the earlier films, he sets himself to helping those on Earth. After defeating his arch enemies, Lex Luthor twice and General Zod, Superman comes face-to-face with a new villain: the megalomaniac Ross Webster, who is determined to control the world's coffee and oil supplies. Superman also battles personal demons after exposure to a synthetic form of kryptonite that corrupts him.
 Richard Pryor as August "Gus" Gorman: A bumbling computer genius who works for Ross Webster and inadvertently gets mixed up in Webster's scheme to destroy Superman.
 Jackie Cooper as Perry White: The editor of the Daily Planet.
 Marc McClure as Jimmy Olsen: A photographer for the Daily Planet.
 Annette O'Toole as Lana Lang: Clark's high school friend who reconciles with Clark after seeing him during their high school reunion. O'Toole later portrayed Martha Kent on the Superman television series Smallville.
 Robert Vaughn as Ross "Bubba" Webster: A villainous, super-wealthy industrialist and philanthropist. After Superman prevents him from taking over the world's coffee supply, Ross is determined to destroy Superman before he can stop his plan to control the world's oil supply. He is an original character created for the movie.
 Annie Ross as Vera Webster: Ross' sister and partner in his corporation and villainous plans.
 Pamela Stephenson as Lorelei Ambrosia: Ross' assistant. Lorelei, a voluptuous blonde bombshell, is well-read, articulate and skilled in computers, but conceals her intelligence from Ross and Vera, to whom she adopts the appearance of a superficial, stereotypical klutz. As part of Ross' plan, she seduces Superman.
 Margot Kidder as Lois Lane: A reporter at the Daily Planet who has a history with both Clark Kent and Superman. She is away from Metropolis on vacation to Bermuda, which put her in the middle of a front-page story.
 Gavan O'Herlihy as Brad Wilson: Lana's ex-boyfriend and Clark's high school rival.

Frank Oz originally had a cameo as a surgeon, but the scene was deleted from the final cut, although it was later included in the TV extended version of the film. Shane Rimmer, who had a role in Superman II as a NASA controller, has a small part as a state police officer. Pamela Mandell, who played a diner waitress in the same film, appears here as the hapless wife of a Daily Planet sweepstakes winner. Aaron Smolinski, who had played baby Clark Kent in the first film, appears in this one as the little boy next to the photo booth Superman changes into. He also would later appear in Man of Steel as a communications officer.

Production

Development
Richard Donner confirmed that he had been interested in writing at least two more Superman films, which he intended to allow Tom Mankiewicz to direct, and that he would have included Brainiac as the villain of the third film. However, Donner departed the series during the production of Superman II. The film was formally announced at the 33rd Cannes Film Festival in May 1980, months before the theatrical release of the second film. In December 1980, producer Ilya Salkind wrote a treatment for this film that included Brainiac, Mister Mxyzptlk and Supergirl. The treatment was released online in 2007. The Mr. Mxyzptlk portrayed in the outline varies from his good-humored comic counterpart, as he uses his abilities to cause serious harm. Dudley Moore was the top choice to play the role. Meanwhile, in the same treatment, Brainiac was from Colu and had discovered Supergirl in the same way that Superman was found by the Kents. Brainiac is portrayed as a surrogate father to Supergirl and eventually fell in love with his "daughter", who did not reciprocate his feelings, as she had fallen in love with Superman. Brainiac retaliates by using a personality machine to corrupt and manipulate Superman. The climax of the film would have seen Superman, Supergirl, Brainiac, Jimmy Olsen, and Lana Lang time travel to the Middle Ages for a final confrontation in a fiefdom taken over by Brainiac. After defeating him and leaving him behind as a helpless serf, Superman and Supergirl would have either been married at either the end of Superman III or in Superman IV. The treatment was rejected by Warner Bros. Pictures as being too complex and expensive to shoot, and Salkind additionally wanted to save the character of Supergirl for a solo film. Because of the high budgets required for the series the Salkinds considered selling the rights to the series to Dino De Laurentiis. The significance of computers to the plot, the villains' plan to corrupt Superman, and the splitting of him into a good and an evil half would be carried over into the final film. The film was originally intended to be titled Superman vs. Superman, but it was retitled after the producers of Kramer vs. Kramer threatened a lawsuit.

Casting
Both Gene Hackman and Margot Kidder are said to have been angry with the way the Salkinds treated Superman director Richard Donner, with Hackman retaliating by refusing to reprise the role of Lex Luthor. After Margot Kidder publicly criticized the Salkinds for their treatment of Donner, the producers reportedly "punished" the actress by reducing her role in Superman III to a brief appearance. Hackman later denied such claims, stating that he had been busy with other movies and the consensus that making Luthor a constant villain would be akin to incessant horror movie sequels where a serial killer keeps coming back from the grave. Hackman would reprise his role as Lex Luthor in Superman IV, with which the Salkinds had no involvement. In his commentary for the 2006 DVD release of Superman III, Ilya Salkind denied any ill will between Margot Kidder and his production team and denied the claim that her part was cut for retaliation. Instead, he said, the creative team decided to pursue a different direction for a love interest for Superman, believing the Lois and Clark relationship had been played out in the first two films, (but could be revisited in the future). With the choice to give a more prominent role to Lana Lang, Lois' part was reduced for story reasons. Salkind also denied the reports about Gene Hackman being upset with him, stating that Hackman was unable to return because of other film commitments.

After an appearance by Richard Pryor on The Tonight Show, telling Johnny Carson how much he enjoyed seeing Superman II, the Salkinds were eager to cast him in a prominent role in the third film, riding on Pryor's success in films such as Silver Streak, Stir Crazy and The Toy. Pryor accepted a $5 million salary to appear in the film. Following the release of the film, Pryor signed a five-year contract with Columbia Pictures worth $40 million.

Filming
Principal photography commenced on June 21, 1982. Most of the interior scenes were shot, like the previous Superman films, at Pinewood Studios outside London. The junkyard scene was filmed on Pinewood's backlot. The coal mine scene, where Superman leaves Gus, was filmed at Battersea Power Station, where Richard Lester had previously shot scenes for the Beatles film Help!.
Most exteriors were filmed in Calgary, Alberta due to Canada's tax breaks for film companies. Superman's drinking binge was filmed at the St. Louis Hotel in Downtown East Village, Calgary, while other scenes such as the slapstick-comedy opening were shot several blocks to the west. While the supercomputer set was created on Pinewood's 007 Stage, exteriors were shot at Glen Canyon in Utah.

Effects and animation
The film includes "the same special effects team" from the prior two films.
Atari, part of Warner, created the video game computer animation for the missile defense scene.

Music

As with the previous sequel, the musical score was composed and conducted by Ken Thorne, using the Superman theme and most other themes from the first film composed by John Williams. Giorgio Moroder was hired to create songs for the film, though their use in the film is minimal.

Release

Theatrical
Superman III was shown at the Uptown Theater in Washington, D.C., on June 12, 1983, and then had its New York premiere on June 14, 1983, at Cinema I. It was released in theatres on June 17, 1983, in the United States and July 19, 1983, in the United Kingdom.

Marketing
William Kotzwinkle wrote a novelization of the film published in paperback by Warner Books in the U.S. and by Arrow Books in the United Kingdom to coincide with the film's release; Severn House published a British hardcover edition. Kotzwinkle thought the novelization "a delight the world has yet to find out about." However, writing in Voice of Youth Advocates, Roberta Rogow hoped this would be the final Superman film and said, "Kotzwinkle has done his usual good job of translating the screenplay into a novel, but there are nasty undertones to the film, and there are nasty undertones to the novel as well. Adults may enjoy the novel on its own merits, as a Black Comedy of sorts, but it's not written for kids, and most of the under-15 crowd will either be puzzled or revolted by Kotzwinkle's dour humor."

Extended television edition
Like the previous films, a separate extended edition was produced. It was aired on ABC. The opening credits were in outer space, featuring an edited version of the film's end credit theme music, serving as an opening theme. This is followed by a number of scenes, including additional dialogue but not added into any of the official VHS, DVD or Blu-ray cuts of the film. The "Deluxe Edition" of Superman III, released in 2006 on par with the DVD release of Superman Returns, included these scenes in its extra features section as "deleted scenes".

Reception

Box office
Superman III grossed $60 million at the United States box office, and $20.2 million internationally, for a total of $80.2 million worldwide. The film was the 12th highest-grossing film of 1983 in North America.

Critical response
Superman III holds a 30% approval rating and has an average rating of  on Rotten Tomatoes based on 56 reviews. The website's critical consensus states, "When not overusing sight gags, slapstick and Richard Pryor, Superman III resorts to plot points rehashed from the previous Superman flicks." The film has a Metacritic rating of 44, indicating "mixed or average reviews" from 13 professional reviewers.

Film critic Leonard Maltin said that Superman III was an "appalling sequel that trashed everything that Superman was about for the sake of cheap laughs and a co-starring role for Richard Pryor". The film was nominated for two Razzie Awards including Worst Supporting Actor for Richard Pryor and Worst Musical Score for Giorgio Moroder. Audiences also saw Robert Vaughn's villainous Ross Webster as an inferior fill-in for Lex Luthor.

Christopher John reviewed Superman III in Ares Magazine #16 and commented that "compared to the first film in this series, everything about Superman III is a joke, a harsh cruel joke played on all the people who wanted to see more of the Superman they saw a few years ago."

Colin Greenland reviewed Superman III for Imagine magazine, and stated that "What ultimately spoils the fun in Superman III is not the incoherent story or even the technophobia. It is simply overloaded – too many ideas, too many gadgets, too many stars (Pamela Stephenson is completely wasted in a part which would have been too dumb for Goldie Hawn). The wiring all comes loose at the end; an anticlimax, and a rushed one at that."

Fans of the Superman series placed a great deal of the blame on director Richard Lester. Lester made a number of popular comedies in the 1960s—including The Beatles' A Hard Day's Night—before being hired by the Salkinds in the 1970s for their successful Three Musketeers series, as well as Superman II which, although better received, was also criticised for unnecessary sight gags and slapstick. Lester broke tradition by setting the opening credits for Superman III during a prolonged slapstick sequence rather than in outer space.

The film's screenplay, by David and Leslie Newman, was also criticized. When Richard Donner was hired to direct the first two films, he found the Newmans' scripts so distasteful that he hired Tom Mankiewicz for heavy rewrites. Since Donner and Mankiewicz were no longer attached, the Salkinds were free to bring their version of Superman to the screen and once again hired the Newmans for writing duties. Reeve stated in his autobiography that the original script for the first Superman had so many puns and gags that it risked having Superman earn a reputation akin to that of Batman being associated with the campy TV show of the 1960s. "In one scene in this script, Superman would be in pursuit of Lex Luthor, identified by his bald head and grab him, only to realize he had captured Telly Savalas who would remark "Who loves ya, baby?" and offer Superman a lollipop. Dick [Donner] had done away with much of that inanity."

Reeve's own performance as a corrupted Man of Steel received praise, particularly the junkyard battle between this newly darkened Superman and Clark Kent. One of the film's positive reviews was from the fiction writer Donald Barthelme, who praised Reeve as "perfect", also describing Vaughn as "essentially playing William Buckley – all those delicious ponderings, popping of the eyes, licking of the corner of the mouth."

References

External links

 Official DC Comics Site
 Official Warner Bros. Site

1980s American films
1980s British films
1980s English-language films
1980s superhero films
1983 films
American sequel films
American superhero films
British sequel films
British superhero films
Films adapted into comics
Films about computing
Films directed by Richard Lester
Films produced by Pierre Spengler
Films scored by Giorgio Moroder
Films scored by Ken Thorne
Films set in Colombia
Films set in Kansas
Films set in West Virginia
Films shot in Buckinghamshire
Films shot in Calgary
Films shot in England
Films shot in Italy
Films shot in Utah
Films shot at Pinewood Studios
Films with screenplays by David Newman (screenwriter)
Films with screenplays by Leslie Newman
Films set in Pisa
Superman (1978 film series)
Superman films
Warner Bros. films

Superman III


Des Mitchell is a British DJ radio presenter and music producer, born in Birmingham, England. He is best known for his hit single
"(Welcome) To the Dance" which peaked at number 5 on the UK Singles Chart in January 2000. He also remixed the hit single for
DJ Quicksilver as Watergate for 'Heart Of Asia' which hit the UK charts at number 3 of the same year 2000.

Other tracks from him include 'The World is Yours'  'Lets Stay Together' featuring Sharon Gitau. 'Desire' featuring Sarah (silky) Scott. 'Gotta Have House' as TMP.
'Call On Me' featuring Bobby Alexander. 'I Wanna See You Dance' as TMP featuring Des Mitchell. 'Everytime I See The Girl' featuring Des Mitchell.
Other projects include remix & studio production work with long time studio partner Jon Riley. Stolen Goodz studio of Leicester. George Morel studio of Miami.

He was born Desmond Watson Mitchell on 25 November 1957 at Birmingham general hospital to Enid Davis and Walford Mitchell.
Home for the past 35 has been Spain, since 1989 in Palma, Mallorca.

Des Mitchell was a DJ/presenter for BBC Birmingham at Pebble Mill studios in 1982 with his own radio show playing reggae, funk & soul music from 1982 to 1985.
He currently since 2013 - 2021 works in radio for Radio Onemallorca presenting his dance drivetime show.

Des Mitchell can still be seen performing as a dj working around the world.
   www.desmitchell.net

 show

References

Year of birth missing (living people)
Living people
British DJs

Des Mitchell


Lito Cruz (May 14, 1941 – December 19, 2017) was a prominent Argentine stage director and motion picture actor.

Life and work
Lito was born Oscar Alberto Cruz in the working-class La Plata suburb of Berisso in 1941, and began performing in local theatres at the age of 15. Graduating from a La Plata secondary school, he continued to pursue his calling in La Plata's growing independent theatre scene.

Enrolling at the University of Buenos Aires School of Architecture and Urbanism in 1961, he made time for performances throughout his studies. Following his 1964 graduation, he enrolled at the prestigious University Theatre Institute of Chile (ITUCH) and returned to Buenos Aires in 1968. He was cast by Argentine playwright Roberto Cossa in a short film adaptation of his Los taitas ("The Uncles") and the following year, co-founded the Experimental Theatre Team of Buenos Aires (ETEBA) with Augusto Fernándes. ETEBA produced an adaptation of Henrik Ibsen's Peer Gynt, La leyenda de Pedro, which was well received and earned Cruz international esteem following its tour through festivals at Nancy, Berlin and Florence. ETEBA was invited to perform their El sapo y la serpiente ("The Toad and the Serpent") at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

Cruz was Professor of Acting at the National Drama Conservatory between 1972 and 1975, where he directed Peter Handke's The Ward Wants to be Warden among other avant-garde works. This experience earned him a U.S. Department of State scholarship to attend Lee Strasberg's prestigious Actors Studio in New York and a fellowship with the Gulbenkian Foundation of Portugal to attend the University of Porto's Drama School. Returning to Buenos Aires, he continued to direct his experimental theatre school, which became one of Argentina's most coveted drama schools. His production of Eduardo Pavlovsky's politically charged El Señor Galíndez led to the bombing of the Payró Theatre by the fascist commando group, the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance.

Having been given a number of supporting film roles since his appearance in Los taitas, Cruz was cast as the happy-go-lucky ghost of an assassinated stockyards worker in Fernando Solanas' Sur (1987), a chronicle of the lives of a working-class southside borough in Buenos Aires during Argentina's brutal last dictatorship. He devoted himself to his drama school, however, accepting only brief supporting roles in film until, in 1996, he was cast in Mario Levin's Sotto voce ("Whispers") as Walensky, a gruff southside bar owner embroiled in intrigue.

Lito Cruz increased his prominence as an advocate for theatre in Argentina during the 1990s, which had been the victim of intimidation during the 1970s and financial woes, since. He was named director of the Argentine Actors' Association and "Action for Culture, Theatre and Visual Arts," a leading advocacy group for its field in Argentina. This work led to his appointment as National Theatres Director in 1995, a position he leveraged to help have Congress pass the "National Theatre Law" in 1998. The bill helped protect struggling stages against demolition and guaranteed annual subsidies for the art.

Lito Cruz continued his work as head of the drama school that now bears his name, while having accepted more starring roles in film. Some of the most notable have been that of a retired military officer guarding a family secret in Fito Páez's Vidas privadas (a 2001 drama that helped secure Mexican star Gael García Bernal's prominence in cinema) and as an aging intellectual facing a crossroads in life in Mario Sábato's India Pravile (2003), among others. He continues his work as an advocate for his art in government, as well, as Director of the Province of Buenos Aires Comedy and the Coliseo Podestá Theatre in La Plata.

Cruz created and produced Sueños de milongueros in 2009, a musical written in homage to authors Jorge Luis Borges and Alejandro Dolina, and cartoonist/satirist Roberto Fontanarrosa.

Awards
 Martín Fierro Awards
2011. Best Supporting Actor, El elegido
2014. Best Supporting Actor, Solamente vos

References

1941 births
2017 deaths
People from Berisso
Argentine people of Spanish descent
Argentine male actors
Argentine dramatists and playwrights
Argentine theatre directors
Drama teachers
University of Buenos Aires alumni

Lito Cruz


Ernst von Wolzogen (23 April 1855 – 30 August 1934) was a cultural critic, a writer and a founder of Cabaret in Germany.

Biography
Wolzogen came from a noble Austrian family; he studied Literature, Philosophy, and the history of art in Strasbourg and Leipzig.  In 1882, he went to Berlin where he worked as an editor at a publishing house and later became an independent writer.  From 1892 to 1899, he lived in Munich where he founded the Freie Literarische Gesellschaft, a literary society.  In 1899, he returned in Berlin where he established the Cabaret Überbrettl, a play on Nietzsche's term Übermensch. He married Elsa Laura Seemann von Mangern in 1902, and wrote social satires for Überbrettl. After its closure in 1905, he returned to Darmstadt.

Wolzogen produced a great many works of humorous fiction. Some of his works include Die Kinder der Exzellenz (1888); Das Lumpengesindel (1892); Ein unbeschriebenes Blatt (1896); Der Kraft-Mayr, 2 vols.(1897); Das dritte Geschlecht, 2 vols. (1899). Although primarily a humorist, he also wrote on serious topics. Works such as Fahnenflucht (1894), Das Wunderbare (1898), and Die arme Sünderin (1901) are examples of his more serious side as an author. Wolzogen work is known for its wit and elegance.

Works

 1879 Um 13 Uhr in der Christnacht
 1885 Wilkie Collins: Ein Biographisch-Kritischer Versuch, biography
 1886 Heiteres und Weiteres, poetry
 1887 Thüringer Roman
 1888 Die Kinder der Excellenz, novel
 1890 Die tolle Komteß, novel
 1890 Er photographiert, comedy
 1892 Das Lumpengesindel, tragic comedy
 1894 Das gute Krokodil und andere Geschichten
 1897 Der Kraft-Mayr, novel
 1897 Die Gloria-Hose, short story
 1899 Das dritte Geschlecht, novel
 1901 Feuersnot, opera libretto, set to music by Richard Strauss
 1905 Verse aus meinem Leben
 1923 Wie ich mich ums Leben brachte (autobiography; anti-semitic)

References

External links

1855 births
1934 deaths
Writers from Wrocław
Austrian opera librettists
German opera librettists
People from the Province of Silesia
German male dramatists and playwrights
19th-century German dramatists and playwrights
19th-century German male writers
20th-century German dramatists and playwrights

Ernst von Wolzogen


First Unitarian Church of Hobart is the oldest Unitarian Church in Indiana, and the oldest church still occupied by its original congregation in the city of Hobart. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places on September 9, 1999.

The church is an Italianate style. The building's simple design on both the interior and exterior has not been altered since its construction.
George Earle laid out the town of Hobart in 1848 on property that he owned near his saw and gristmill. To encourage development, he  offered free land for community projects such as a railroad and congregations wishing to build churches with a resident minister and regular services. A group of Hobart citizens organized "a society founded on the principals taught and promulgated by the Unitarians, and for the public worship of God, [and] also for the advancement of the principles of morality and the ultimate good of society in general," in 1848 with 48 members.

History
Hobart's Unitarian Church was constructed of locally produced brick at a cost of $15,000.00.  The lot for the church was purchased from Hobart's founder, George Earle, for $1.00.

Description
The Unitarian Church a two-story brick structure. The brick structure was built in 1875 and dedicated in January 1876. The frame addition is from 1954 to 1955 and 1990. Built on a city lot, a memorial garden on the north side is surrounded by a stonewall.

Built as a rectangular block using common bond brick walls with a gable roof. There is a three-tiered steeple above the entrance. There are tall, narrow arched windows divided into three sashes of three amber-colored panes. Each window has a stone sill with a semicircular brick crown with brick tabs. The windows on the south or primary facade resemble arches supported by piers with a capital and base. The walls are topped by a plain frieze-like cornice. The steeple has three, incrementally smaller, tiers. Each section has a shingle covered hip roof. Within the lower two section is the church bell.

The piers have a capital and a base that rests on the stone sill. A horizontal molding along the top of the door connects the two capitals. The arch over the double-doors is filled by a wood panel with gothic-like carvings. Centered above the door and near the gable peak is a decorative circular wood insert carved with a floral-like detail. The insert may have replaced a circular window that was never installed or was enclosed when the interior was remodeled. Directly below this stone is a square stone block carved with the date 1874, the year of the congregation's formation.
The north and south facades are identical. Each wall is divided by pilasters into four bays. The end bays are longer than the two center, and pilasters are located at each building corner. Windows, equidistant apart, are located within each bay. The center pilaster of the south facade has a brick chimney that services a basement furnace. It starts at ground level and projects up through the eaves. There is an adjoining parish hall and church offices which do not contribute to the historical significance of the church.

The church's interior includes; the vestibule, gallery, and assembly room. The vestibule is a small space inside the main entry doors.  The entry to the assembly room is through double-doors centered between two single doors. All four doors are wooden with four panels.
A gallery is above the vestibule for use as a choir loft.
The assembly room is rectangular and is two floors in height. Both the north and south walls have four arched windows set. At the east end is a stage, up two steps from the main floor. There is a decorative wood backdrop (1964) and wood double-doors on the east wall.  The doors lead to the parish hall.

Bibliography
Hobart Historical Society. Downtown Hobart. Self-published, 1988.
Indiana Historic Sites and Structures Inventory. Lake County Interim Report. Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, 1996. (P. 17 & 20, No. 04087).
Northwest Indiana Regional Planning Commission. Historic Preservation Inventory and Assessment. Self-published, 1977. (P. A-4).
White, Joseph. Where God's People Meet: A Guide to Significant Religious Places in Indiana. Carmel, IN: Guild Press of Indiana, 1996.

References

Churches on the National Register of Historic Places in Indiana
Italianate architecture in Indiana
Churches completed in 1875
Churches in Lake County, Indiana
National Register of Historic Places in Lake County, Indiana
1875 establishments in Indiana
Italianate church buildings in the United States

First Unitarian Church of Hobart


Calendrical Calculations is a book on calendar systems and algorithms for computers to convert between them. It was written by computer scientists Nachum Dershowitz and Edward Reingold and published in 1997 by the Cambridge University Press. A second "millennium" edition with a CD-ROM of software was published in 2001, a third edition in 2008, and a fourth "ultimate" edition in 2018.

Topics
There have been many different calendars in different societies, and there is much difficulty in converting between them, largely because of the impossibility of reconciling the irrational ratios of the daily, monthly, and yearly astronomical cycle lengths using integers. The 14 calendars discussed in the first edition of the book included the Gregorian calendar, ISO week date, Julian calendar, Coptic calendar, Ethiopian calendar, Islamic calendar, modern Iranian calendar, Bahá'í calendar, French Republican calendar, old and modern Hindu calendars, Maya calendar, and modern Chinese calendar. Later editions expanded it to many more calendars. They are divided into two groups: "arithmetical" calendars, whose calculations can be performed purely mathematically, independently from the positions of the moon and sun, and "astronomical" calendars, based in part on those positions.

The authors design individual calendrical calculation algorithms for converting each of these calendars to and from a common format, the Rata Die system of days numbered from January 1 of the (fictional) Gregorian year 1. Combining these methods allows the conversion between any two of the calendars. One of the innovations of the book is the use of clever coding to replace tables of values of mildly-irregular sequences, such as the numbers of days in a month. The authors also discuss the history of the calendars they describe, analyze their accuracy with respect to the astronomical events that they were designed to model, and point out important days in the year of each calendar. An appendix includes full documentation of the software.

One purpose of the book is to provide usable and efficient open software in an area where previous solutions were largely proprietary, incomplete, and buggy. Author Edward Reingold originally programmed these methods in Emacs Lisp, as part of the text editor GNU Emacs, and the authors expanded an earlier journal publication on this implementation into the book. This code has been converted to Common Lisp for the book, and distributed under an open license, and included within the book as a precise and unambiguous way of describing each algorithm.

Audience and reception
This is primarily a reference book, but can also be read for pleasure by readers interested in this topic. Reviewer Victor J. Katz recommends this book to anyone who is "at all interested in how we deal with time". However, reviewer John D. Cook points out that, to understand the details of the algorithms described in the book, readers must be familiar with Lisp coding, and that it is difficult to skim without working through the details. On the other hand, despite not being easy reading, reviewer Antonio F. Rañada recommends it not only to "mathematicians, astronomers or computer scientists, but also for historians or for any person interested in the cultural aspects of science".

Reviewer Noel Swerdlow views the first edition as a "work in progress", preferring the 19th-century tables of Robert Schram to computerized methods. And while praising it for avoiding the "second-hand errors, third-order simplifications, and outright myths" of many other millennial works on the calendar, reviewer Robert Poole points out as a weakness that it only considers a single version of each calendar, whereas historically these systems went through multiple revisions, and quotes the book as noting that its results are sometimes "mathematically sensible, but culturally wrong". Adding that the reduction of a human-produced calendar to a computer calculation is "sheer hubris", he nevertheless concludes that "We can be grateful that so useful a work of reference has been created from a project of such awe-inspiring futility". And reviewer Manfred Kudlek calls this "the most extensive and detailed publication on calendar systems" since the early 20th-century Handbuch der mathematischen und technischen Chronologie of Friedrich Karl Ginzel.

See also
 New moon
 Zeller's congruence

References

External links
Edward M. Reingold's Calendar Book, Papers, and Code
Calendrical Calculations on Google Books
 Calendrical Calculations on Worldcat (lending/reference library availability).

Calendar algorithms
Computer science books
Mathematics books
1997 non-fiction books
2001 non-fiction books
2008 non-fiction books
2018 non-fiction books
Cambridge University Press books

Calendrical Calculations


Marcello Maruzzo (23 July 1929 – 1 July 1981), known in his religious order as Tullio was an Italian missionary dedicated to catechesis and evangelization among the local people in Guatemala. Maruzzo was a professed priest from the Order of Friars Minor.

His beatification received approval from Pope Francis and was celebrated in Izabal, Guatemala on 27 October 2018.

Life
Marcello Maruzzo was born in Vicenza, Italy in 1929 to the poor peasants Angelo Maruzzo and Augusta Rappo, one of eight children. His twin sibling was Daniele (later Fra Lucio). His mother died on 21 September 1940.

Maruzzo and his twin brother Daniele joined the Order of Friars Minor in 1940 (first doing their novitiate) and both received their ordination to the priesthood from Cardinal Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli—the future Pope John XXIII—on 21 June 1953. Maruzzo studied for the priesthood in Chiampo before his first vesting in the habit in 1945 and his profession in 1951. His brother left Italy to be a missionary in Central America in December 1956. Maruzzo followed his brother leaving Italy for Guatemala in 1960. He first settled in Puerto Barrios on 16 December 1960, learning Spanish so he could communicate with the local communities. He tended to their needs and celebrated Mass for them but also moved from village to village where he worked with the local Caritas distributing necessities to the poor while defending the rights of the peasants. He evangelized the message of the Gospel to them and was known for being a friend to the poor and the homeless.

Maruzzo received warnings, threats, and intimidation aimed at stopping his work. He was accused of being a "communist priest". His superiors feared that the intimidation would escalate, so they transferred Maruzzo elsewhere, but the threats continued. It was during his final placement that he met and worked alongside Luis Navarro, who was a catechist.

He and Navarro were at a catechetical meeting when the pair were ambushed and shot dead at 10:40 pm on 1 July 1981.

Beatification
His beatification process commenced under Pope Benedict XVI, on 10 November 2005, together with that of Luis Navarro. Subsequently, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints (C.C.S.) declared the "nihil obstat" (no objections to the cause) and the two men were given the title Servants of God. The investigation was conducted by the Izabal apostolic vicars under Gabriel Peñate Rodríguez bishop from its inauguration on 31 January 2006 until its closure later on 15 July 2008. Their documents of investigation went to the C.C.S. in Rome who validated the diocesan phase of investigation in a decree issued on 12 February 2010. The C.C.S. received the Positio dossier from the postulation later in 2014.

The theologians advising the congregation issued their approval to the argument that the two were killed in hatred of the faith in their meeting held on 31 May 2016, while the members of the C.C.S. also confirmed this on 26 September 2017. Pope Francis confirmed their beatification in a decree promulgated on 9 October 2017 in an audience with the congregation's prefect.

The beatification was held in Izabal, Guatemala on 27 October 2018.

The current postulator for this cause is the Franciscan priest Giovangiuseppe Califano.

References

External links
 Hagiography Circle

20th-century venerated Christians
Beatifications by Pope Francis
Deaths by firearm in Guatemala
People murdered in Guatemala
Roman Catholic missionaries in Guatemala
Venerated Catholics

Marcello Maruzzo


Mantis shrimps are crustacean stomatopods.

They are not actually shrimps, but members of the order Stomatopoda. There are about 400 species.

They are predators which kill their prey by hitting them at high speed.

They hold their body in a manner like that of a praying mantis, and have large, complex eyes. Some species can be 30 cm long.

They are highly coloured, and live in shallow tropical and subtropical habitats such as coral reefs.

Attack methods
Each species has one of these two methods of attack
Spearers are armed with spiny appendages topped with barbed tips, used to stab and snag prey.
Smashers, on the other hand, have a club as an appendage, and a simpler spear. The spear is quite sharp and used in fights between their own kind. The club is used to bludgeon and smash their prey.

Both types strike by rapidly unfolding and swinging their claws at the prey, and can cause serious damage on victims larger than themselves.

In smashers, these two weapons are employed with blinding quickness, and hit their prey with the speed of a bullet. This is one of the fastest responses known to man.

Smashers use this ability to attack snails, crabs, molluscs and rock oysters; their blunt clubs enabling them to crack the shells of their prey into pieces. Spearers, on the other hand, prefer the meat of softer animals, like fish, which their barbed claws can more easily slice and snag.

Cavitation shock waves
Because they strike so rapidly, they generate cavitation bubbles between the appendage and the striking surface. The collapse of these bubbles hits their prey in addition to the impact of the appendage against the striking surface.

This means that the prey is hit twice by a single strike; first by the claw and then by the collapsing cavitation bubbles that immediately follow. Even if the initial strike misses the prey, the resulting shock wave can be enough to kill or stun the prey.

Eyesight
Their eyes are mounted on mobile stalks and constantly move about independently of each other. They are considered to be the most complex eyes in the animal kingdom.

The mantis shrimp has such good eyes it can perceive both polarized light, and colour vision outside the normal visual spectrum.

Some species have at least 16 different photoreceptor types, 12 of them for colour analysis in the different wavelengths (including four which are sensitive to ultraviolet light) and four of them for analysing polarised light. By comparison, humans have only four visual pigments, three dedicated to see colour.

Function of eyesight
The eyes of mantis shrimp may recognize different types of coral, prey species (which are often transparent or semi-transparent), or predators, such as barracuda, which have shimmering scales.

Also, the manner in which mantis shrimp hunt (very rapid movements of the claws) may require very accurate ranging information, which would require accurate depth perception.

During mating rituals, mantis shrimp actively fluoresce, and the wavelength of this fluorescence matches the wavelengths detected by their eye pigments.

Females are only fertile during certain phases of the tidal cycle; the ability to perceive the phase of the moon may therefore help prevent wasted mating efforts. It may also give mantis shrimp information about the size of the tide, which is important for species living in shallow water near the shore.

References

Decapods

Mantis shrimp