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
TheEccentric
Hampshire, UK Veteran
0
Comments
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.
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.
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.
What's the difference between a very large tribe and an "actual countire [sic]" then?
I don't understand what you're saying here. 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.
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.
This all just made me think of this video...
Declare Independence:
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".
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.
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....
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.