Fact check: Is China trying to erase Tibetan culture by, among other things, internationally promoting the use of the name Xizang instead of Tibet?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses overwhelmingly support the claim that China is actively trying to erase Tibetan culture by promoting the use of "Xizang" instead of "Tibet" internationally. Multiple sources confirm this is a deliberate strategy by Beijing to control global discourse about Tibet.

The evidence shows that China's name change campaign is not merely semantic but represents a calculated move to redefine the region's identity and erase its cultural and historical distinctiveness ^[1]. This effort is part of a broader strategy to exert control over the global discourse on Tibet, depoliticize the issue, and obscure human rights abuses in the region ^[2].

Concrete examples of this campaign include:

• The Kathmandu International Mountain Film Festival (KIMFF) controversy, where Chinese films about Tibet were screened as propaganda to promote China's narrative, illustrating how cultural institutions become sites of geopolitical contestation ^{[3] [4]}
• Bhutan's adoption of the term "Xizang", which has sparked pushback and suggests the country is coming under Chinese influence as part of China's growing regional influence in South Asia ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks important context about China's broader efforts to control Tibetan religious and cultural institutions beyond just the naming issue. Sources reveal that China is also attempting to control the selection of the next Dalai Lama ^[6], indicating the name change is part of a comprehensive strategy to assert authority over Tibetan identity.

A contrasting perspective emerges from one source, where an Indian analyst actually praises China's efforts in preserving Tibetan culture ^[7]. This viewpoint suggests that some observers view China's actions, including the use of "Xizang," as legitimate cultural preservation efforts rather than erasure attempts.

The question also omits the geopolitical dimension - China benefits from this naming strategy by normalizing its sovereignty claims over Tibet and reducing international sympathy for Tibetan independence movements. Meanwhile, Tibetan exile communities and human rights organizations would benefit from maintaining international use of "Tibet" as it preserves the region's distinct identity and keeps attention on human rights concerns.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains no apparent misinformation - it accurately frames the core issue as a question rather than making unsupported claims. However, there is a potential bias in the framing that assumes cultural erasure is the primary motive.

The question could be seen as leading by specifically mentioning "erasing Tibetan culture" rather than asking more neutrally about China's motivations for promoting "Xizang." This framing predisposes readers toward viewing the name change negatively without first establishing whether the change has legitimate cultural or administrative justifications from China's perspective.

The overwhelming consensus from the analyses supports the premise that this is indeed a cultural erasure effort ^{[1] [2] [4]}, but the single contrasting viewpoint ^[7] suggests the question's framing may not fully capture the complexity of perspectives on this issue.