By the time the Fourteenth Dalai Lama fled Tibet in March, 1959, he had gone through a steady period of disillusion with Chinese officials, who had been offering much lip service to communism -- a philosophy he thought was, in theory, practical and promising. The reality of those officials, spearheaded by one of the twentieth century's most villainous characters, Chairman Mao, was anything but what he initially expected.
One of their unusual practices was a constant concern for his "safety," as if leaving the Potala Palace at all was a constant threat on his life. At first the man formerly known as Lhamo Thondup was surprised at their generosity concerning his welfare. When they began suggesting that native Tibetans posed a threat, he knew something was suspicious. This was proven when these officials invited him to a dance performance at their post in Lhasa, telling him to arrive in secrecy (an impossibility for a man in his position). The citizenry found out, and united--tens of thousands of them -- they blocked the entrance to the Palace so he could not leave. In the ensuing chaos sponsored by the Chinese army, he fled, eventually setting up camp at Dharamsala, where he resides today.
While in Paris this weekend, both of my cards -- a bank-issued Visa ATM and a Mastercard--were denied after having used them once each. This put me in a tough situation, whereby I had to borrow money. Upon returning, I called Bank of America to find out what was going on. Turns out that they have implemented a new security measure to battle fraudulent claims. This is understandable -- last year they successfully blocked a $930 charge to a Wal-Mart in Texas, after two smaller charges went through. (The timing was horrific, though -- I had just landed in Alabama to lecture at the state university, and found myself having to borrow from my hosts.)
Fraud is a serious crime that is truly bothersome. That someone would steal the numbers of my account and go on a Wal-Mart shopping spree, after spending $35 at two different "wings" restaurants (on a vegetarian's card, no less), is sad and depressing. Yet equally bothersome was the Bank of America representative's assurance that all this was for my "personal safety" (a point she reiterated numerous times). She did not mention the article in today's NY Times that stated the bank "raised its credit loss provisions to $6.01 billion from $1.24 billion," and had a 77% decrease in its quarterly profit.
I have to wonder, whose safety are we discussing? She told me that with this new security measure I should call every time I leave the state--not the country, mind you, but the New York/New Jersey region--and then hopefully my card won't get turned off. If it does, I have to call the toll-free number (unless it's international), answer a barrage of questions, and then (again) hopefully get the card that holds my own money to give it to me.
All this in France, no less, a country where the customs official reclined comfortably in his seat, merely smiling as he scanned my passport and waves me through. On the return, the American official was friendly enough, yet assaulted me with questions: Where were you? Why were you there? How many countries did you visit? Did you enjoy yourself?
During my entire stay, I was reminded at the absurdity of American governance and media, a system that recently suggested we change French to "freedom" fries, all because they opposed our war efforts. Recently when Nicolas Sarkozy hinted toward a possible Olympic boycott if China did not become humanitarian in their relationship with Tibet, George Bush said we should keep politics out of the Games -- this from a third generation Reaganomic, a president that supported the boycot the 1980 Olympics due to our political relationship with Russia. (The boycott began with Jimmy Carter.)
What I was struck most by the French -- a culture often regarded as snobbish in America--was how everyone (save an angry cab driver one evening) went out of their way to accommodate the fact that I speak perhaps ten words in their language. It was my second time in the country, and the general sense of ease is astounding. No, it is not Edenic; no, I have nothing against my homeland. But I do have the opportunity to travel a good amount (coming from a country where only 30% of Americans even own a passport), and time and again I'm reminded of how suffocated we are in the name of "security."
I recall a time last year when, traveling to Canada, my friend put down his knapsack for a moment and walked twenty feet to tell me something. He was immediately approached by a security guard who told (yelled at) him to pick up his bag, peering at us the entire time we waited at the gate. Riding the New York subways every day, I've seen similar attitudes by beat cops, not to mention the National Guard, an extra treat for those of us who live in Jersey City. Making us feel like criminals does not boost our sense of security.
Offering safety to humans that we don't know goes against everything we are on a biological level. Safety concerns, first and foremost, our individual person. From there it extends to siblings, then parents and children, and then to loved ones, extended family and finally to friends. The idea that it goes to people we do not know would make us a biological anomaly. Which is not to say that it cannot happen--compassion and altruism are commendable qualities we can all strive for and develop. To imply that Bank of America and the US government are in the habit of practicing those qualities would require a profound leap of imagination.
Just over 49 years since becoming a refugee, the Dalai Lama is a constant reminder of the development of compassion. In his second autobiography, Freedom in Exile, he reminds us of one of the Buddha's most relevant teachings, that our enemies are our greatest teachers. I would not claim that my bank and government are in any way enemies. But I would also put forth the Buddhist art of discrimination, and not take at face value their concern for my safety. That is a quality we have to take into our own hands, and remind ourselves that when such entities say they are looking out for us, we have to be aware of whose interest is really at hand.