Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

PROOF: Tibet is not in China

TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran

Comments

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    I hate to tell ya, but that doesn't "prove" anything.

    You might want to read this summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_sovereignty_debate

    And just for the record, I wish China would leave Tibet alone.
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    The present moment always being so important, unfortunately Tibet now finds itself under the heel of China.
    vinlynInvincible_summer
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    So the video maker found a bunch of maps that show Tibet having a different border from China. That's not very convincing. There are islands that are officially parts of other countries (e.g. Bermuda, French Guiana, Martinique, etc) that aren't within their borders.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran

    So the video maker found a bunch of maps that show Tibet having a different border from China. That's not very convincing. There are islands that are officially parts of other countries (e.g. Bermuda, French Guiana, Martinique, etc) that aren't within their borders.

    It shows it to be a different country not just that it is outside China's borders as it Clearly says on the map "Tibet" Not "Tibet (China)" like it would if it was officially part of another countrie.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    Tibet is not in China "Proper" neither is Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia or Mancuria which also are stolen lands
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    Ok, so whaddya gonna do bout it?
    Invincible_summer
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited January 2013
    China loves to cite the Yuan Dynasty's incorporation of Tibet into "China" as the defining precedent. But during the so-called Yuan Dynasty, China was part of the Mongol Empire, it wasn't an independent country, itself. Labeling that period as a Chinese "dynasty" is a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth.

    And it was the same during the Qing "Dynasty", when China was conquered by the Manchus, and, along with Tibet, was part of a greatly expanded Manchuria. Again, China was not an independent nation during the Manchu domination, which lasted about 300 years. Even prior to the Mongol conquest of China, China was a province of the Jurchens (ancestors of the Manchus). China has labeled this period the "Jin Dynasty", but it was yet another period in which China was was subject to foreign rule. The Mongols conquered the Jin/Jurchens, and gained China in the process, which did not include Tibet. The Mongols had to win over Tibet separately.

    This is not about "doing anything" about Tibet's current situation. It's all about pulling back the veil on nearly a millennium of Chinese propaganda, and gaining an accurate understanding of history. The fact is that between 1115 and 1912, there was very little time when China was independent and could make any claim over any of its neighbors.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    Dakini said:

    China loves to cite the Yuan Dynasty's incorporation of Tibet into "China" as the defining precedent. But during the so-called Yuan Dynasty, China was part of the Mongol Empire, it wasn't an independent country, itself. Labeling that period as a Chinese "dynasty" is a deliberate attempt to disguise the truth.

    And it was the same during the Qing "Dynasty", when China was conquered by the Manchus, and, along with Tibet, was part of a greatly expanded Manchuria. Again, China was not an independent nation during the Manchu domination, which lasted about 300 years. Even prior to the Mongol conquest of China, China was a province of the Jurchens (ancestors of the Manchus). China has labeled this period the "Jin Dynasty", but it was yet another period in which China was was subject to foreign rule. The Mongols conquered the Jin/Jurchens, and gained China in the process, which did not include Tibet. The Mongols had to win over Tibet separately.

    This is not about "doing anything" about Tibet's current situation. It's all about pulling back the veil on nearly a millennium of Chinese propaganda, and gaining an accurate understanding of history. The fact is that between 1115 and 1912, there was very little time when China was independent and could make any claim over any of its neighbors.

    I know, the Yuan Dynasty shouldn't count.
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran

    Tibet is not in China "Proper" neither is Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia or Mancuria which also are stolen lands

    Arguably, almost all modern nation-states are "stolen land" from one group or another. What makes Tibet special?
    lobster
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    Tibet is not in China "Proper" neither is Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia or Mancuria which also are stolen lands

    Arguably, almost all modern nation-states are "stolen land" from one group or another. What makes Tibet special?
    A very good question that came into focus for me in studying the history of Thailand and realizing that over centuries who controlled that land varied from the ethnic Thais to the Khmer (ancestral Cambodians), the Burmese, and others. I'm not sure that history should be the basis for modern geographical borders because where do you draw the line?

    Invincible_summer
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran

    Tibet is not in China "Proper" neither is Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia or Mancuria which also are stolen lands

    Arguably, almost all modern nation-states are "stolen land" from one group or another. What makes Tibet special?
    None of the real countries
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    Tibet is not in China "Proper" neither is Xinjiang, Inner Mongolia or Mancuria which also are stolen lands

    Arguably, almost all modern nation-states are "stolen land" from one group or another. What makes Tibet special?
    A very good question that came into focus for me in studying the history of Thailand and realizing that over centuries who controlled that land varied from the ethnic Thais to the Khmer (ancestral Cambodians), the Burmese, and others. I'm not sure that history should be the basis for modern geographical borders because where do you draw the line?

    Are you saying that Tibetans deserve to suffer just because others have in there place? Also most of the people who have had land stolen from are wiped out anywhere and just are a bunch of tribes not an actual countire like Tibet that deserves independence, you can't compare the invasion of Tibet to those other circumstances at all.
    Invincible_summer
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran



    A very good question that came into focus for me in studying the history of Thailand and realizing that over centuries who controlled that land varied from the ethnic Thais to the Khmer (ancestral Cambodians), the Burmese, and others. I'm not sure that history should be the basis for modern geographical borders because where do you draw the line?

    Are you saying that Tibetans deserve to suffer just because others have in there place? Also most of the people who have had land stolen from are wiped out anywhere and just are a bunch of tribes not an actual countire like Tibet that deserves independence, you can't compare the invasion of Tibet to those other circumstances at all.

    No, of course I'm not saying that. In fact, if you go back to earlier in the thread you'll see that I said, "I wish China would leave Tibet alone".

    The Khmer empire was a tribe????? Then you don't know much about the Khmer empire. The Burmese were just a tribe????? Then you don't know much about the Burmese.

    First of all, anything that you say about Tibet is almost irrelevant. There's not a damn thing you're going to be able to do about it.

    Second, who gets to pick the year to go back to in any one boundary dispute? In North & South Korea. In Taiwan and Mainland China. In the American Civil War. In the North American colonies and England? In countless disputes in Africa and Asia and Europe. In Quemoy and Matsu? In the Spratley Islands? To be honest, I don't see a lot unique about the situation between Tibet and China. It somewhat common in many places throughout history.

    I'm on the side of Tibet, but I also think it's a pretty hopeless situation.

    Invincible_summer
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    edited January 2013


    None of the real countries

    I don't understand what you're saying here.


    Are you saying that Tibetans deserve to suffer just because others have in there place? Also most of the people who have had land stolen from are wiped out anywhere and just are a bunch of tribes not an actual countire like Tibet that deserves independence, you can't compare the invasion of Tibet to those other circumstances at all.

    Take some time to read some Wikipedia or something. Please. "Just tribes?" That's pretty insulting to a lot of people.

    What's the difference between a very large tribe and an "actual countire [sic]" then?
  • Good luck to those fighting over the ownership of dirt. Better luck to those bringing peace to those whose mind is buried . . . What a great potential for peaceful resolution and practice . . .
    BhikkhuJayasaraInvincible_summer
  • BhikkhuJayasaraBhikkhuJayasara Bhikkhu Veteran
    tibet is a made up concept.. so is China.. I agree with my enigmatic friend Lobster.
    Invincible_summer
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran


    I don't understand what you're saying here.


    What I'm saying is a real country would nlot be stolen and would belong to the natives and not just occupied land like Tibet in China, its an invasion and can not be compared to just a different group of people settling down on almost empty lands like how some countries are today.


    Are you saying that Tibetans deserve to suffer just because others have in there place? Also most of the people who have had land stolen from are wiped out anywhere and just are a bunch of tribes not an actual countire like Tibet that deserves independence, you can't compare the invasion of Tibet to those other circumstances at all.

    Take some time to read some Wikipedia or something. Please. "Just tribes?" That's pretty insulting to a lot of people.

    What's the difference between a very large tribe and an "actual countire [sic]" then?
    The difference is that an actual country would be united and have settled down and formed a civilization not just some divided tribes in the wilderness, it may be insulting but its the truth.
  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran


    What I'm saying is a real country would nlot be stolen and would belong to the natives and not just occupied land like Tibet in China, its an invasion and can not be compared to just a different group of people settling down on almost empty lands like how some countries are today.

    [...]

    The difference is that an actual country would be united and have settled down and formed a civilization not just some divided tribes in the wilderness, it may be insulting but its the truth.

    So you'd be in favour of a mass exodus of N. America, Australia, New Zealand, etc so the natives can have their land back?

    The point I and others are trying to make is that the concept of a "country" is completely arbitrary. Political borders are arbitrary. Colonization in Tibet is no different from colonization that happened during the 15th century onwards.
  • zombiegirlzombiegirl beating the drum of the lifeless in a dry wasteland Veteran


    What I'm saying is a real country would nlot be stolen and would belong to the natives and not just occupied land like Tibet in China, its an invasion and can not be compared to just a different group of people settling down on almost empty lands like how some countries are today.

    [...]

    The difference is that an actual country would be united and have settled down and formed a civilization not just some divided tribes in the wilderness, it may be insulting but its the truth.

    So you'd be in favour of a mass exodus of N. America, Australia, New Zealand, etc so the natives can have their land back?

    The point I and others are trying to make is that the concept of a "country" is completely arbitrary. Political borders are arbitrary. Colonization in Tibet is no different from colonization that happened during the 15th century onwards.
    I get your point, but I think it can be important to the people living in certain countries to protect their heritage. My old sangha had a girl from Taiwan and she once explained to me that although she spoke Chinese, she was not and never would be Chinese. It was obviously very important to her.

    This all just made me think of this video...
    Declare Independence:
    Invincible_summer
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    As far as records show, Tibet was part of the advancing mongol empire which in part split to the Yuan empire - Tibet was part of this through the Ming and the Q'ing dynasties (during which China defended it as a region of China), up until around 1910 which saw widespread revolutions and the eventual fall of the monarchy leading through to the communist revolution (though these were a series of uprisings and internal wars) - there was a period between 1910 and 1950 when Tibet could be said to have been independently administered however during this period its independence was not recognised by China, the UN or any major western power - it was after the turmoil had settled down at the core of china that it looked around at its territories and brought them into line - more interesting is why china would have wanted to do this and the significance of Tibet as a country and an ancient world culture.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran


    What I'm saying is a real country would nlot be stolen and would belong to the natives and not just occupied land like Tibet in China, its an invasion and can not be compared to just a different group of people settling down on almost empty lands like how some countries are today.

    [...]

    The difference is that an actual country would be united and have settled down and formed a civilization not just some divided tribes in the wilderness, it may be insulting but its the truth.

    So you'd be in favour of a mass exodus of N. America, Australia, New Zealand, etc so the natives can have their land back?

    The point I and others are trying to make is that the concept of a "country" is completely arbitrary. Political borders are arbitrary. Colonization in Tibet is no different from colonization that happened during the 15th century onwards.
    I would not be in favour of that because firstly nearly all the natives are wiped out now and they never where a unified coun`trie, the situation in Tibet is different however and the european colonization is completely different because China isn't colonizing Tibet, they are hjust an Evil, Cruel oprresive force that are invading and need to be stopped, what you could compare to China's outrageous actions though would be theattempted ?Nazi domination of Europe in ww2, they are no less evil or cruel crimes

  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    @Zero even then the Yuan Dynasty was never China, it was just a division of the Mongol empire, that the Chinese themselves were opposed to, it's just nowadays when it suits them that the Yuan Dynasty was Chinese
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    It would be difficult defining 'China' otherwise as before the Yuan Dynasty we are looking at around 300 years of the Song Dynesty which itself was split - the Yuan Dynesty encompassed all of modern china and a little beyond so it would be fair considering that as 'China' in the modern sense of the territory - by the time Kublai Khan came to power (that itself was an interesting mixture of inheritence and war) the Mongolian empire itself was splitting up and the Yuan Dynasty was modelled on and has been an architype of a classical Imperial Chinese model - Kublai himself was emperor and Khan for around 30 years but the Dynesty lasted from around 1260 to 1900 - Tibet was arguably autonomous for 40 years or so while China was preoccupied with foreign invasions after 1900's - this all ended when the communist party amalgamated its power across all its territories - there are similarities with Hong Kong, which again has its own language and culture and was autonomous under British control for 150 years odd before China simply took it back.
  • ZeroZero Veteran
    edit: sorry Yuan dynasty itself lasted for around 100 years - the Imperial Dynasties lasted to around 1900 (though arguably in part until 1950 or so)
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran



    What's the difference between a very large tribe and an "actual countire [sic]" then?

    The difference is that an actual country would be united and have settled down and formed a civilization not just some divided tribes in the wilderness, it may be insulting but its the truth.

    You're sorely uninformed about, for example, the Khmer (the ancestral Cambodians)(which was what I brought up that you responded to).

    By the first century BC there was a small kingdom of Cambodia, heavily influenced by Indian culture with art and a political system. Their alphabet system, religions, and architecture were also influenced by India. Archeological evidence has proven a commercial society in the Mekong Delta that lasted until the 6th century.

    Then along came a Khmer prince who called himself Jayavarman II, who established a sort of god-king form of government. His kingdom centered around Angkor Wat, and had a vast irrigation system. From the 9th-15th century, he and his successors built a vast network of temples, and by the 12th century they had developed a road system, hospitals, and temples that stretched well into what is today the Issan region of Thailand, all the way to what is now the Kanchanaburi area. Khmer influence had also spread to today's Laos, Burma, and Malaysia.

    I suggest you do some reading. These and other cultures were not "tribes".
    Invincible_summer
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran
    vinlyn said:



    What's the difference between a very large tribe and an "actual countire [sic]" then?

    The difference is that an actual country would be united and have settled down and formed a civilization not just some divided tribes in the wilderness, it may be insulting but its the truth.
    You're sorely uninformed about, for example, the Khmer (the ancestral Cambodians)(which was what I brought up that you responded to).

    By the first century BC there was a small kingdom of Cambodia, heavily influenced by Indian culture with art and a political system. Their alphabet system, religions, and architecture were also influenced by India. Archeological evidence has proven a commercial society in the Mekong Delta that lasted until the 6th century.

    Then along came a Khmer prince who called himself Jayavarman II, who established a sort of god-king form of government. His kingdom centered around Angkor Wat, and had a vast irrigation system. From the 9th-15th century, he and his successors built a vast network of temples, and by the 12th century they had developed a road system, hospitals, and temples that stretched well into what is today the Issan region of Thailand, all the way to what is now the Kanchanaburi area. Khmer influence had also spread to today's Laos, Burma, and Malaysia.

    I suggest you do some reading. These and other cultures were not "tribes".

    Fair enough but that is not comparable to what the Chinese are doing to Tibet, over 1 million Tibetans have died under the wicked, cruel actions of the Chinese and many temples have been destroyed.


  • The Eccentric said:
    I would not be in favour of that because firstly nearly all the natives are wiped out now and they never where a unified coun`trie, the situation in Tibet is different however and the european colonization is completely different because China isn't colonizing Tibet, they are hjust an Evil, Cruel oprresive force that are invading and need to be stopped, what you could compare to China's outrageous actions though would be theattempted ?Nazi domination of Europe in ww2, they are no less evil or cruel crimes
    The Native American population is not nearly wiped out. They are currently at just over 4 million (registed as tribe members) and according to the US Census board, will reach 5 million in a few years. And I am sure they'd be happy to receive the return of their ancestral lands. In fact, there has been on ongoing court battle where the Lakota /Sioux have been trying to create a Lakota Nation Republic in the Dakotas for the past 30 years.
    What the US has done to the American Indian population is genocide, both cultural and physical - right up to the 1970s.
    Pretty much the same as what the Soviets did in the former Soviet Republics, who were able to regain freedom in 1991.
    I'd say what China is doing is the same, cultural and physical genocide - not colonization.
    I'd like to see a free Tibet. And a free Taiwan. And a free North Korea, And a free Cuba....
    Invincible_summer
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran


    Fair enough but that is not comparable to what the Chinese are doing to Tibet, over 1 million Tibetans have died under the wicked, cruel actions of the Chinese and many temples have been destroyed.


    Wrong again. There is a long history of just that kind of action in Southeast Asia. Suggest you look, for example, at the Burmese sacking of Autthaya (the old Thai capital) in 1767. Just one of several conquests of Thailand by Burma.

  • Invincible_summerInvincible_summer Heavy Metal Dhamma We(s)t coast, Canada Veteran
    edited January 2013



    I get your point, but I think it can be important to the people living in certain countries to protect their heritage. My old sangha had a girl from Taiwan and she once explained to me that although she spoke Chinese, she was not and never would be Chinese. It was obviously very important to her.

    This all just made me think of this video...
    Declare Independence:

    Yes, I definitely understand that. I hope I don't come off as an apologist for cultural hegemony or anything. It's just that the OP seems very set on the idea that Tibet is a unique situation, which I think is silly.


    I would not be in favour of that because firstly nearly all the natives are wiped out now and they never where a unified coun`trie, the situation in Tibet is different however and the european colonization is completely different because China isn't colonizing Tibet, they are hjust an Evil, Cruel oprresive force that are invading and need to be stopped, what you could compare to China's outrageous actions though would be theattempted ?Nazi domination of Europe in ww2, they are no less evil or cruel crimes

    Oh, they're just "evil." That explains everything.

    "Colonization" doesn't just mean "Oh hi we're going to set up camp here. Don't mind us." It entails hegemony and domination in just as many ways as China is hegemonizing Tibet. And if only permitting Chinese nationals to own businesses in Tibet isn't a result of modern colonization/imperialism, I don't know what is.

    How was European colonization not cruel or oppressive? And comparing China's (admittedly questionable) domestic policies to Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

    Reeks of Sinophobia to me.
  • TheEccentricTheEccentric Hampshire, UK Veteran



    I get your point, but I think it can be important to the people living in certain countries to protect their heritage. My old sangha had a girl from Taiwan and she once explained to me that although she spoke Chinese, she was not and never would be Chinese. It was obviously very important to her.

    This all just made me think of this video...
    Declare Independence:

    Yes, I definitely understand that. I hope I don't come off as an apologist for cultural hegemony or anything. It's just that the OP seems very set on the idea that Tibet is a unique situation, which I think is silly.


    I would not be in favour of that because firstly nearly all the natives are wiped out now and they never where a unified coun`trie, the situation in Tibet is different however and the european colonization is completely different because China isn't colonizing Tibet, they are hjust an Evil, Cruel oprresive force that are invading and need to be stopped, what you could compare to China's outrageous actions though would be theattempted ?Nazi domination of Europe in ww2, they are no less evil or cruel crimes

    Oh, they're just "evil." That explains everything.

    "Colonization" doesn't just mean "Oh hi we're going to set up camp here. Don't mind us." It entails hegemony and domination in just as many ways as China is hegemonizing Tibet. And if only permitting Chinese nationals to own businesses in Tibet isn't a result of modern colonization/imperialism, I don't know what is.

    How was European colonization not cruel or oppressive? And comparing China's (admittedly questionable) domestic policies to Nazi Germany is ridiculous.

    Reeks of Sinophobia to me.
    Not agreeing with and opressive force invading and occupying a country like China hardly makes you sinophobic, it makes a you a decent human being, why should Tibetans stand for that just because others have gone through the same?
  • DakiniDakini Veteran
    edited January 2013



    I know, the Yuan Dynasty shouldn't count.

    Neither should the Qing (the Manchu).

Sign In or Register to comment.