 | Central Asia Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
 | China Unassessed | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tibet article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 |
 | Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
 | Tibet has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}. |
 | Template:FACfailed is deprecated, and is preserved only for historical reasons. Please see Template:Article history instead. |
 | This article (or a previous version) is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations. |
Moral Question: Should the United States exist?
If the Tibetans suffered, it is not because of the Han Chinese. Tibetans suffered because of the their theocracy. Their theocracy taught and brain-washed them into expecting nothing but suffering in this earthly life. The modern Chinese state is at long last freeing the Tibetans from their suffering, bringing them freedom to think, science and technology and health care. The Tibetans in exile are not free to critically examine the suffering caused by the culture imposed upon them by their theocracy, but only to glorify the dalai lama as their leader and saviour as instructed and so deep-rooted in their psyche.
As for racial mixing or assimilation, the Tibetans and Hans are essentially the same race. The difference between them is not racial but cultural and linguistic, which could easily be resolved by education and mutual respect. You would not be able to tell the Dalai Lama was 'not' Chinese simply by looking at a picture of him. I have seen many modern native Americans; sadly these descendants of the original natives are no longer genetically the same as their Native ancestors. Many of these modern descendants are now genetically over 50% European.
8 Sep 06. JC
After all, the founding of the world's greatest democracy is based on the subjugation of the natives and what the PRC is doing today in Tibet is NO WHERE as worse.--Lssah 88 17:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Even if your version of history was true, two wrongs don't make a right. In any case, American Indians were killed off by smallpox and similar diseases, not by any policy of the US.
- Actually, that is not the only view. Some have documented policies promulgated by various local and federal authorities in the US that were either exterminationist or assimilationist. Another issue that is never discussed in any Western Civilization history is the fact of small pox. We are almost lead to believe that somehow small pox just happened and the "innocent" settlers had nothing at all to do with and were ignorant of it. That was not the case. Many times small pox was deliberately spread. Another thing that is forgotten is that a population is more prone to diseases when they are starving. It was colonial policy to destroy Native American's economies and sustenance by slaughtering herds (and not just Buffalo, many nations practiced pastoral life) but also of burning or destroying crops.
- I am not saying that what China is doing with its colonies today is any better however. --Aishwarya888 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- In my view, the people in every Chinese province or region should have self-determination. Self-determination is a principle of international law recognized in treaties already signed by Beijing. Chinese shouldn't feel threatened by the idea of self-determination for Tibet, but consider it an example for own provinces. The self-government Hong Kongers keep voting for is no different than what Tibet wants -- and what every US state already has.Kauffner 02:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is the US going to hold a referendum asking all their natives if they still want all their land back in the name of self-determination? Of course not! Make no mistake about it, the younger generation of Tibetans will forever be bound to China. They are already learning Mandarin in schools and from what I've read, they are even enlisting in the PLA. I would think in the future any attempts by the exiles to forcibly detach Tibet from China will not only meet resistance from Han Chinese, but also by these younger generation of Tibetans. I also suggest you read over what regional self-determination will involve before you apply it to the Chinese situation, particularly articles on the Warlord Period.--Lssah 88 15:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to see that happen. I think that the AIM claims that about one third of the continental US is legally (by US's own law) sovereign territories belonging to various nations.--Aishwarya888 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Just to make it clear, the Native Americans were 'killed off' by displacement, disease, warfare and enslavement, both with the Europeans and with the Americans. Look at Indian Removal, Indian Wars, and Native Americans in the United States for more infomation. As far as what the PRC is doing in Tibet in relation to the USA, Kauffner is right, two wrongs don't make a right, and further more, the US aren't still doing what the PRC is doing, the the two are not comparable. Thε Halo Θ 08:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- You are right it is not comparable, the PRC is no where near as bad in its treatment of Tibetans as what the US (and other European countries) had done with their natives. True, the Tibetans will most likely be sinicized, but I don't see the assimilation to be as bloody as in the Americas. If anything, their racial makeup will be watered down by the Hans in the long run as they had done with the Manchus. Is that necessarily a bad thing? I don't think anyone can really say, because the arguments one would make against racial assimilation are the same ones an ardent Nazi would make who wants to preserve his Aryan race, etc.... Why should Tibetans be so special? Why shouldn't they be treated any different from other normal people? That's pretty ridiculous in this day and age of shrinking distances and collasping boundaries.--Lssah 88 15:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- That's debatable. Of course the PRC would say that not many Tibetans have been killed so far. Of course the Tibetans will say that about a million have been killed. The issue is though when you destroy a culture and nation, regardless of not bloodily destroying the physical people, you have killed the nation. The Polish man Raphael Lemkin who coined the term "genocide" after fleeing from Europe included assimilation with intent to destroy or absorb a distinct population, language or religious group. In his view, you didn't need physical mass murder to call it genocide, since what is being killed is a "genus" or "origin" which is close to what "nation" used to mean.
- As for you arguments against racial mixing or cultural mixing...How would you feel if Europe invaded China again, but this time decided to settle by the millions. If the Chinese tried to preserve their distinctiveness, I could then call them Racist, by your understanding. The problem is you took the word out of context. Assimilation is not necessarily bad in itself. But you must also look at power relations...who has power and who doesn't. Is one culture forcing another to assimilate? Is one religion or ideology forcing the conversion of another? Then there is the swamp. Bringing in a large population of settlers is another way of forcing assimilation. It worked like a charm in North and South America. It worked in Ireland and Scotland. And in many areas that today are considered China, but were not China several hundred years ago, it worked. It happens you know. People who resist and try to hold on to their distinctive culture or heritage are not being racist. It is not the way you say. It is not either "support China" or Tibetans who resist and carry on their traditions are racist. Cultures and pressures to change are not so black and white. Please research racism more.--Aishwarya888 20:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree with your assertion that Tibetan's assimilation with the Hans is forced. There's no Chinese policy barring Tibetans from learning their native language, or that they can't worship in their monasteries, or that they can't celebrate traditional festivities. In fact, ethnic minorities in the PRC are exempt from the One-Child policy. If you travel to Tibet, you will see many street signs still written in Tibetan, even the railroad cars in the newly built Qinghai-Tibet railway have passenger instructions written in Tibetan. The way I see it, the Tibetans have a choice of living a purely traditional lifestyle to their detriment, or introduce modernity the Chinese provide to complement their culture. Today's Tibetans are choosing the latter. However, the exiles conveniently neglect the positives of Chinese rule and instead focus purely on the negatives; some of the arguments they make screams of racist overtones to a Chinese. By your argument on this whole racism issue, the idea of white supremacism is logically natural because these bigots feel their culture is threatened by non-white invasions, yet, it is already impressed in the Western conscience to denounce these groups as racist. You did bring up an interesting point when you mentioned the origin of the term "genocide", but unfortunately, most people associate that term to the systematic extermination of a group of people. So when you see those Free Tibet nutcases throw that word around like candy, the majority of people listening to their rants would think the Chinese treatment of Tibetans is equivalent to that of the Nazi Holocaust, which is simply not true.--Lssah 88 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- There seems to be a lack of education through the medium of Tibetan in China within "Tibetan" areas. That almost always is a sign of language preference, if not active assimilation. Ireland of the 1800's was in a similar state and today most Irish people speak English. Some would say that this assimilation wasn't forced per se. But when you remove the native language from any terms of advancement or education opportunities, you place the native people in a bind. And either they conform and get on with life, or stay to their "detriment" as you say. This sounds like colonialism to me.
- I disagree with your assertion that Tibetan's assimilation with the Hans is forced. There's no Chinese policy barring Tibetans from learning their native language, or that they can't worship in their monasteries, or that they can't celebrate traditional festivities. In fact, ethnic minorities in the PRC are exempt from the One-Child policy. If you travel to Tibet, you will see many street signs still written in Tibetan, even the railroad cars in the newly built Qinghai-Tibet railway have passenger instructions written in Tibetan. The way I see it, the Tibetans have a choice of living a purely traditional lifestyle to their detriment, or introduce modernity the Chinese provide to complement their culture. Today's Tibetans are choosing the latter. However, the exiles conveniently neglect the positives of Chinese rule and instead focus purely on the negatives; some of the arguments they make screams of racist overtones to a Chinese. By your argument on this whole racism issue, the idea of white supremacism is logically natural because these bigots feel their culture is threatened by non-white invasions, yet, it is already impressed in the Western conscience to denounce these groups as racist. You did bring up an interesting point when you mentioned the origin of the term "genocide", but unfortunately, most people associate that term to the systematic extermination of a group of people. So when you see those Free Tibet nutcases throw that word around like candy, the majority of people listening to their rants would think the Chinese treatment of Tibetans is equivalent to that of the Nazi Holocaust, which is simply not true.--Lssah 88 22:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am not against modernity, yet each culture must utilize their own resources to develop. Otherwise we get the global world with only Chinese, Americans, Japanese, Indians, Spanish, French, and some other larger cultures with no regard to any of the other unique and distinctive ways of life. There is more to life than roads, internet, IPods, and TVs, you know.
- Actually your argument using the white supremacism idea isn't applicable here, since white supremacism and "aryanism" comes from within the dominant society and culture of the USA and not a minority group. White supremacists and Tibetan nationalists are not the same and it would behoove you, for a fair and more balanced knowledge, to learn what makes each different. I don't equate nationalism or struggle to keep alive a culture with any sort of supremacy. Otherwise I can say that I am going to take my Newari people and we are going to go to China and convert everyone there to Buddhism and teach them how to be proper modern Newari people and if Chinese people resist than they should step down because all the Newari are doing is opening up China to modernity.
- I haven't heard from Tibetan nationalists much about "genocide." There are nutcases as I am sure. You always get a few in any group. But to classify a whole movement or group like that is to be derogatory and insulting to them. I don't think Chinese people are wrong or bad for being who they are. I don't even feel they should be blamed for Tibet. But I do think that both sides on the Tibet issue need to start actually listening to what the other is really saying as opposed to the usual strawmen arguments. One thing that the PRC could do that could show goodwill would be to let UN or other fact finding missions go and see about this genocide or torture idea. Blanket denials just seem like what they are: denial. Many people in South American countries also denied their governments were doing horrible things, and as it turns out, when facts came to light by independent witnesses, the denials were false. If PRC wants to settle the whole Tibet issue, they should let some independent groups in to gather their own evidence without interference from the government. (Which is untrustworthy, not because it is China, but because it is a government, and all gov'ts are not to be trusted.)--Aishwarya888 10:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- One can debate on the morality of Chinese rule all day long but it is fruitless. What's happened has happened, and it's wise for all parties involved to look forward on current realities and see how the issue can be settled to mutually benefit both the native Tibetans (not the exiles) and ruling Han Chinese. Tibetan independence, for all its intents and purposes, is a pipedream that will never happen. That said, Tibetan separatists is counter productive to anything positive the Chinese are trying to accomplish; their sedition overtones gives the CCP all the ammo they need to tighten security. The CCP can choose to re-demolish all those monasteries, ban worship, ban the Tibetan language, and herd all the natives into reserves at any time, but they don't because it is not neccessary. It is not neccessary because MOST Tibetans in Tibet are at least neutral towards Chinese rule, and it is clearly false to claim most Tibetans don't appreciate the economic prosperity/increased standards of living the Chinese brought. Those that hate Chinese rule are a minority, but they apparently make the most racket in Western media (due to support from right-wing anti-China hawks in the West I might add). If there is ever going to be a peaceful settlement, Dali Lama will have to explicitly oppose and sever all ties to "Free Tibet". The PRC does not negotiate with separatists, nor with those tied to separatists.--Lssah 88 20:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lssah, any government's rule over any territory can be debated by any side for any length of time. I am not concerned, to tell the truth with "PRC" rule, only effects of their policies. The reason being is that I am very cynical towards any government and trust none of them. Those in power will say and do anything to maintain their power and status, even if it means destroying facts and changing history. So let's not rely on anything any government says.
- What I am worried about is the devouring of human diversity by large "mega-cultures" which are homogenizing the planet into the top five or six cultures (America, Europe, Japan, China, Arabia, etc). Smaller-scale societies are getting destroyed. In this instance, the Tibet case is interesting to me. (Though I don't think anthropologists would agree with me about Tibet being small-scale.) What we have are huge globalized and globalizing societies that are losing the ability to appreciate anything different or "separate" and are questioning why anyone would wish to be different. This is a sad situation for the world.
- I wonder why the PRC feel so insecure that they have to control their part of the Himalayas with a heavy hand. Certainly they are no longer worried about India, are they? I actually wish I could read Chinese to find out from China sources. One thing we should beware of though is the tendency to call other people's fights or dreams "pipedreams." Because when we get stuck to our pretentious smugness, reality slaps us in the face. I believe much of Asia, Africa, and other places like Ireland that were once possession and colonies of European empires are today free and independent because those nationalist or "separatist" struggles didn't give up. One Irish patriot said "What if the dream becomes a reality?" So we shouldn't be so quick to write off someone like the Tibetans as being a lost cause. They will work out whatever they will work out with the PRC or any other Chinese authority and perhaps the result will be something neither of us can imagine today.
Anyway. Thank you for the counterpoints. I am learning a lot. --Aishwarya888 20:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- But you forgot to mention the Chinese names next to the Tibetans in their own home "country". Monkey Brain(untalk) 04:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Chinese names in uniformly larger text, in fact.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 04:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Of course there will be Chinese signs in Tibet, WHY wouldn't there be? Pictures of the Tibet rail--Lssah 88 17:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Whether who recognises what as whatever, it is beneficial to have signs in Chinese since the Chinese travel and work in Tibet right now. I imagine there are also signs in Tibetan as well. And if English-speaking people start visiting Tibet in any great numbers then there will be signs in English too. It's just the nature of the beast. I wouldn't read too much into it.--Aishwarya888 20:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- Because Tibetan recognize Tibet as a country, not as part of greater China. They do not want chinese promotion(or assimilation) in their country. Monkey Brain(untalk) 17:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Maybe true, maybe not... But may I ask how many local/TAR Tibetans have you talked to before you draw such conslusion? 219.79.122.73 18:35, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I can't speak for the Tibetan people in TAR, but I have talked to the Tibetan people in exile, and I guess what? All of them I have talked to speak of Tibet as a seperate country, and not a part of China. Monkey Brain(untalk) 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I understand. But as User:Lssah 88 already pointed out, such kind of view can be seen as biased since the only source of information about local people's (current) position on this issue are from Tibetans-in-exile while many of those have been in exile for decades. Same analogy, I don't think the viewpoint held by the Chinese dissidents living in the west can represent that of the common Chinese people nowadays. 219.79.122.73 19:10, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Tibetans speak for Tibet is not necessarily POV. However Chinese speaking for Tibet is kind pushing the limit. The you gave analogy works, but that is assuming that if the Tibetans in Tibet are free to Speak their mind. However if the Tibetans are kept in check by PRC(Which is most likely), then the only reliable information that can be gathered is from those Tibetans who are not under the Chinese influence(a.k.a Tibetans in Exile). Monkey Brain(untalk) 19:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- How can you take the opinions of the exiles and use them as reliable information? Most of them haven't travelled to Tibet in more than 50 years, and the majority of them were nobles who had the most to lose from a Chinese takeover, namely their fiefs/serfs; so they are naturally the most vocal against the Chinese. It is impossible to gauge the Tibetans' opinions on Chinese rule unless one actually travels to Tibet, and find a way to poll a sample of the locals secretly. However, given that there had been no major recent disturbances in Tibet since the 1959 revolt, I can safely say the situation in Tibet is not as horrific as those exiles claimed.--Lssah 88 21:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, quite a few of the "exiles" have been back and forth many times. Don't think that border is so tightly sealed off. In Nepal, some cross between countries all the time. No one cares because the mountains keep most people from doing so. There have been major disturbances in Tibet since the 1959 uprising. The seventies. The eighties, especially around the time of the Tiananmen fights. And the mid-nineties. There may be more unrest and we just don't hear much about it since Tibet is not easy for journalists and such people to get into. Perhaps some of you should go there and find out.--Aishwarya888 10:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The point is that there is no way to reliably poll the locals of Tibet. The opinions of people who have recently left there are, therefore, more reliable than any other data available.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- The people who have recently fled are isolated incidents whose attitudes towards the Chinese government does not neccessarily represent all those other Tibetans who choose to live under Chinese rule. However, if there was a sudden mass exodus of Tibetans from the region, then maybe their opinions of the Chinese could be taken in face value.--Lssah 88 05:07, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- I guess you didn't know of the "sudden mass" amount of people who fled Tibet with Dalai Lama, when the Chinese were taking over Tibet. Maybe you forgot the face value back then? And I am pretty sure those that stay in Tibet are either because of the chinese control over the region(meaning border partols and stuff, you know the drill) and/or because they do not want to hand over the rest of Tibet. Monkey Brain(untalk) 05:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- What happened back then is not what is happening now. Back then, every Chinese suffered from Mao's radical policies, including the Tibetans. It is unlikely the future CCP leadership (who are educated in the West) to turn to radicalism again. As for why the majority of the Tibetans remain, is the notion that they stay because they are enjoying the increased standards of living and economy prosperity, you find, that hard of a possibility?--Lssah 88 04:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- The concept itself is not hard to believe, however, if China/Chinese speak for the Tibet/Tibetans, then they can not be trusted. Similarly, you wouldn't trust a Robber's pov over the Robbed would you?. The closest facts we can get are from the Tibetan in Exile, the recent ones. The Tibetans in the PRC is not likely to state the truth, with PRC watching their backs. And you cannot say that PRC is not watching their every move.
- You say back then "every Chinese suffered", but still, they follow Mao's lead. Isn't that contradictory? As for the future educated leadership, I doubt they would ever think democratically; I'm more likely to presume that their education only is for the advancing more propagation techniques, I mean that is what China funds their education for, isn't it? Monkey Brain(untalk) 04:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- You have to understand that there was a personality cult surrounding Mao, so despite the fact people were suffering, they dared not oppose him. The only group of people who really "followed" Mao were the Red Guards, but they were naive youths easily indoctrinated. Also, the CCP is not entirely anti-democratic, they are experimenting with grassroot elections of committee members in the rural areas Village Elections in China.--Lssah 88 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree. Considering only the opinion of the people who have left there is committing self-selection. That is, the objects in your sample have self-selected themselves into the sample. Clearly, only people who don't like living in a present-day Tibet would have left. So of course you would expect most or all of them to resent the current administration. To get a more realistic picture, you would have to account for the probability of people leaving tibet given that they don't like living there. This would give you an estimate for the true (range of) opinions inside the TAR. --Sumple (Talk) 00:28, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- How many Tibetans are fleeing China every year? According to UNHCR, about 2,000. That is just 0.03% of the 6 million ethnic Tibetan population in China. Can they represent for what all Tibetans in China think? Why don't our readers talk with some Tibetan students from China who currently study in Europe and US? 67.53.62.250 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian
- Sounds interesting. But, how many people is that really, the total number of Tibetans from the PRC studying abroad in the West. Do you suppose that's a random sample of Tibetans, the ones who have the opportunity to go abroad to study?—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Self-determination
- Self-determination is a principle enshrined in the UN Charter. Decolonialism and self-government is the trend all over the world, with the breakup of the French, British, and Soviet empires. It's not a question of "Tibetans being so special." I see the issue in terms of democracy and self-determination vs. Communism and imperialism. Tibet has the potential to play a role comparable to that of the Soviet Union's Baltic republics in bringing down communism. I have no interest in Tibet's future racial makeup. Assimilation due to "shrinking distance and collasping boundaries" is separate from the issue of a forced assimilation policy imposed by an illegitimate and nondemocratic goverment.
- You're confusing self-determination with the idea of turning the clock back hundreds of years, which is wildly impractical. To return to the world of 1492, China would have to turn Manchuria over to the Manchu/Jurchens and Inner Mongolia to the Mongols. What happens to mixed race people? I myself have some American Indian blood.
- As far as the warlords of the 1920s go, they represented selfish military cliques and their foreign backers, not popular will or self-determination. Kauffner 08:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- I just don't see self-determination as a practical permanent solution. Even if the CCP agrees to it and Tibet goes free, it would have been done under extreme circumstances (ie. the CCP is too weak/on the verge of collapse) and temporary at best. History has shown again and again that China can't be divided forever, it is inherent in Chinese politics (since 221 BC) that unity of the nation is the foremost mandate for any ruling Chinese government. If you look at the situation in Taiwan, the KMT party and their pan-blue supporters are vehemently opposed to self-determination by the separatists, yet their political system is democratic. Self-determination for Tibet is not as simple as holding an election in the West, considering the 1.3 billion mainland Chinese will see the disappearance of a third of their country's territory as losing much more than just a limb, and will most likely revolt because such a referandum was made by a minority group without their involvement. China is too important of a cogwheel in today's world economy for any country to want see it destabilize.--Lssah 88 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Your argument seems to be that Tibet will not be able to enjoy its political rights because the Chinese people won't allow it. This is probably true.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 17:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that is exactly the argument I am making.--Lssah 88 19:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Pfffffffttt! The idea that a referendum in Tibet would provoke outrage and revolt in China proper is pure fanasty. The CCP could turn opinion around in no time if it wanted to, just like they do on Taiwan all the time. There are endless bloodthirsty tirades, but nothing ever happens and Chinese have been trained never to ask why. I would tell Chinese I met, "The more tension there is between China and Taiwan, the more money America makes selling weapons." The crux of the issue in Tibet is that if a non-communist government could successfully run the region, other parts of China would start to wonder, "Why can't we have that too?" Kauffner 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
- I said a referendum in Tibet without Han involvement will provoke an outrage, just look at the May Fourth movement for Christ sake if you really want to know how Chinese feels about territorial integrity. Oh yes, CCP propaganda is so effective in turning public opinion on a whim those Tibetans will be turned into commie lovers before the CCP lets them hold that referendum. Seriously though, I can't think of anything the CCP could say to convince the Chinese that losing Tibet is not a bad thing, considering they are losing 1/3 of their territory and exposing a tenuous corrider to Xinjiang, they will lose a major strategic ___location bordering India, they will lose a major source of natural resources from that region, they will lose all the billions upon billions of dollars worth of investment the Chinese already poured into modernizing Tibet ... the list goes on and on. China has too much to lose to allow that to happen. For them to throw all that away and kowtow to international pressure is plain foolish, even you should know that. Also your point of bringing in communism and non-communism is moot since a non-communist government such as the KMT would still have gone after Tibet, and given their current day attitudes towards Taiwan separatism, you can bet they would have adopted similar anti-successionist policies if they have a free hand with Tibet.--Lssah 88 14:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- What does this whole section (self determination) have to do with the article? --Sumple (Talk) 00:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Quite a lot actually, but this discussion is not focused on what about self-determination might be appropriately included in the article, if anything. Fred Bauder 00:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Lately, this talk page seems to have become something of a discussion forum.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 22:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- A referendum for self-determination is only applicable to the people who live in the colonies. But Tibet is a not a colony. Even UN Decolonization Committee does not list Tibet as a colony (and in fact it listed Tibet as a part of China in its 1945 World Map). Moreover, will US grant the right of self-determination to the Hawaiians even though Congress has recognized Hawaii as an occupied nation? If US won't, I guess China will neither. 166.122.98.179 01:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian
- But, isn't it clear that the situation in Hawaii today is very different from the situation in Tibet today? On the other hand, the situation in Tibet is somewhat similar to the situation in Hawaii a hundred years ago. Is that your model for how to do things? You want to repeat that process in China? I would hope that most reasonable people would agree that what happened in Hawaii a hundred years ago was a bad thing—rather that emulate it, we should be trying to figure out how to prevent something like that from happening again.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 18:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- But what happened in Hawaii and Tibet were actually both events of the past -- one happened 100 years ago and the other happened 50 years ago. You cannot ask the other ethnic groups to leave Hawaii and let the Native Hawaiians alone like you cannot ask the Han, Hui and Mongols (in fact these groups have co-existed with the Tibetans in Qinghai/Amdo and Kham/Western Sichuan for centuries) to leave the traditional Tibetan homeland. And strategically both US and China will never give up Hawaii or Tibet. 206.195.188.250 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian
- Well, I whole-heartedly agree that no one who was born in Tibet should be required to leave now (and neither should people who moved there with good intentions and made it a permanent home). But the difference between Hawaii and Tibet is that Tibet, according to the government's own figures, is still 93% ethnic Tibetan (and, by my count, an additional 2 million+ Tibetans live in other Tibetan autonomous areas with Tibetan majorities), whereas only 6.6% of the people of Hawaii are indigenous Hawaiians.
- As for what will happen strategically, I believe you're right that the PRC won't give up control of Tibet in the foreseeable future. However, proposals for "high-level autonomy", made by the Dalai Lama among others, deal with domestic issues, and are quite compatible with an arrangement in which the PRC retains control of Tibet's foreign relations and strategic military sites on the border.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, PRC's government figure is generally deemed to be unreliable. Many visitors to Tibet, and even Dharamsala, have cited that there are visible Han presence in Tibet. Probably native Tibetans have dwindled to less than 50% of the total population.
The problem with HHDL's autonomy proposal is that he asks more than what he originally had -- even more than the terms signed in the 17-point agreement. He included Kham and Amdo -- which Lhasa government had long lost control before 1951 -- as his "Greater Tibet" autonomy scheme. Will Beijing agree to an autonomy area as large as 1/3 of China by a 6-million ethnic group? There are many other minority groups in China that are larger than Tibetans in population. If every group proposes to carve 1/3 of China and even only allows minimal PLA presence (stipulated in his Strasbourg proposal), will Beijing agree? If HHDL really wishes to seek dialog, he got to be realistic. 206.195.188.250 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Ian
I'm just wondering, those who wish for Tibet to defend their culture, what is your opinion on Christian Missionaries? Their job is to destroy culture and spread their own. Do you actively fight against that? The threat of Christianization is the greatest foe for all Asian culture, its already rapidly spreading. Bribing the poor or threatening them with hell, millions even in China have already lost their native culture for this western system. 72.66.92.209 22:04, 22 August 2006
- Agreed. Those arguing Tibet is "losing their culture" can make similar arguments that China is losing their culture to Christianity, MacDonalds and democracy. But guess what, I don't see them complaining about the westernization of China. Go figure...--Lssah 88 15:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why wonder? Why even care? And anonymously at that? [I added your signature by the way.] What culture is there to defend...Buddhism? By what criteria does something need to be accepted as a "native" culture to defend--your opinion? It seems that you described not necessarily Christianity, but some western system of brutality, exaggeration, misinformation and lies which you are also evidently a part.Ep9206 23:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- The whole "blame Mao" thing is getting cliched and overworked. It is time to bury that dead horse. Everything that went or goes wrong with PRC policies in the past or today cannot simply be blamed on Mao and his people. Should we blame the shortsighted bad-ecology decisions of today's PRC in many areas on Mao? Likewise, things that may be going wrong today in Tibet cannot simply be magically placed into the past and under Mao's fault. Seriously.
- Another thing. I really don't see a threat to Asia coming from Christianization. Please support that with some facts if you are going to say it as if it's true. The greatest threat to Asia is still our own leadership. Sad, yes? Even after more than fifty years of freedom from Europe's empires, our worst foes are our own Asian leaders.--Aishwarya888 21:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm assuming when you say Asia you are referring to China specifically. Regarding your assertion that CCP is a "threat" to their own people, China's political system have operated under Confucian principles for millenia: The populace is expected to be obedient to central authority, and the government, in return, is responsible for providing moral leadership for its people. (Sinologists aside, very few Westerners have concept of this) Granted, the CCP had done some questionable things in the past that could have got itself deposed, but the very fact they are still ruling China today means they are doing something right, and therefore, hold the mandate to govern the country. No one can deny the CCP was responsible for bringing China out from a backward, war-ridden society to superpower status within the span of a generation, despite setbacks Mao had brought. Chinese should not be afraid of their government in itself, they should be more afraid of what happens if their government destabilize, as those are the times Chinese history has shown again and again to be the most bloody. Given China's economy continues to grow strong today, and that Hu's government is doing more than their predeccessor in bridging the rich/poor gap, I don't see any major internal challenges to their authority in the forseeable future. Regarding the Christianity issue, I personally don't have a problem with it as long as it remains completely secular, but I have talked to Han nationalists who oppose its introduction to China as being unneccessary because the fabric of Chinese society have always existed on Confucian ethics, and not from individual spiritual enlightenment from one divine being. Some of them even argues Christianity undermines China's traditional Confucian values, and serves as a backdoor for the West to influence how Chinese people thinks.--Lssah 88 17:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Tibet, not Shangri La
Is there any way to mention in the main article the traditional Tibetan system of punishment that was abolished by the PRC? As they were a theocracy, their doctrines did not believe in the death penalty, the compromise for that was bodily mutilation, such as hacking off hands, taking out eyes. These cruel punishments that are in violation of basic human rights were abolished when the PRC established themselves there.
Or is it possible to mention anywhere what Tibetans did with captured Communist party members during the war? They tortured and mutilated them.
It just needs to be shown that Tibet is a real place, with real people, their history is as full of atrocities as any one elses. Its not some magical Shangri La of Perfect Harmony, it was a theocracy as crushing as any from Dark Ages Europe.
- Yes, the article can mention any facts provided that they are well-documented.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is History in this Article?
After sticking some information into Early Days, I'm wondering why a history section even exists on the main page when History of Tibet is a whole article by itself elsewhere. There are also blurbs about religion and language in this section. They probably belong in some other section like culture. Ep9206 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's considered quite normal on Wikipedia for an article about a place to have a brief summary of the history, while linking to a longer article on History of X.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
!!!!
I agree, what happened to the native americans was wrong. It should have benn prevented. ut It wasn't. Now We have the chance to re-write the wrongs of our history.
Free Tibet!!!!!!
Just wanted to mention that most of this article about Tibet stinks, as written by Chinese hands!!!! By the way I am Swiss and not Tibetan!!!!!
- "Multiple exclamation marks is a sure sign of madness." -- Terry Pratchett, Maskerade =D --Sumple (Talk) 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Incidentally don't you think too many Americans have been misled about what actually happened in Tibet? American media...This isn't the first user I see arguing for a so-called "free Tibet", e.g. see User:My Tibet. I know WP:NOT a soapbox, but I have to say something to those thousands of naive Americans coming here crying for a free Tibet while their soldiers are definitely, well, on occupied land: What the American media say is BS and Chino-phobia. Thanks. And forgive me if I sound like im politically biased or something, but this "Free-Tibet" stuff needs an explanation. Aran|heru|nar 12:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think it really bears that much explanation. Really, every place ought to be free and it's not hard to convince most people of that unless they have some sort of grudge about it. At some point, "Free Tibet!" became fashionable as a result of the mysterious vagaries of fashion, so it tends to get a lot more attention than most places.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Imagine Chinese users come over to Hawaii article and cry for "FREE HAWAII!!!!!!!!!" everyday, and you'll realize how foolish the act of these misled Westerners are. The claim of an independent Tibet never gained majority favor internationally even during the collaspe of Qing Dynasty. The Western cultures began to emerge such voices after the exile of Dalai Lama, perhaps simply because they felt the old man is poor, or maybe the politicians found another new way to pester PRC government. Many of the common people came into such belief that "Chinese hands stinks!!!!" just because they were brainwashed enough by the perspectives of mass media leaning toward Western cultures. -- G.S.K.Lee 22:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to make a statement about this issue. I think the tibet has every right to fight for independance. All historical evidence shows that it was clearly a country before. I dont think this cause is foolish as GskLee has pointed out. I am chinese, I was born in china, but now I have serious concerns about the chinese political situation. As a resident in Vancouver, Canada I see first hand the both sides of the story. In Vancouver the chinese embassy right now is surrounded by a protest. The posters and billboards that hang the walls of the embassy has been there for years. I dont see how this is just another way to pester the PRC. My father is a strong PRC supporter. I had gone through many arguements on this matter. I know both sides of the story, I lived in China. I know what the chinese goverment is doing is wrong. I have seen their demonstrations. During a chinese performance the demonstraters where outside. I took one of their pamphlets, but the staff will not let me carry that pamphlet in. I was in Canada for god sakes. Canada has freedom of speech. WHERE IS CHINA'S FREEDOM OF SPEECH, HUMAN RIGHTS? My family has suffered under communism rule. I have seen enough, I seriously support the Free Tibet cause.
Terminator50 02:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Terminator50
- I support the Chinese government. It is doing the right thing at least on this issue. I have family and friends living in China, and I care for them. Like most Chinese people in mainland china they are doing well, living a better life. I don't want to see china become Kosovo or Chechnya.
sovereignty
The sovereignty section of this article has been moved here. Please feel free to expand the summary on this page. Me...™ 04:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)