Mongolia was never controlled by ethnic Chinese. Mongolia conquered China when the Mongols invaded China and took over almost half the known world.
History 101 FTW, your education FTL !!
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,910
- 238
- 106
I can see it now, the Chinese will give Tibetans the same opportunities the U.S. gave its conquered natives. Here comes the age of the Tibetan casino.
Japan kicked the sh!t out of China, so should Japan get the land it conquered back? After all, by that same reasoning the Japanese were illegally removed from the Chinese mainland proper, Manchuria, and the Korean peninsula. Damn all the history revisionism going on in this thread.
Japan kicked the sh!t out of China, so should Japan get the land it conquered back? After all, by that same reasoning the Japanese were illegally removed from the Chinese mainland proper, Manchuria, and the Korean peninsula. Damn all the history revisionism going on in this thread.
Okay now I have an idea of where you stand.
China's control over Tibet was very loose at best. They were largely interested that the religious ruler in Tibet would be sympathetic towards them as opposed to their potential enemies (as they had problems with Tibetan flavored Mongol Buddhists who fought them).
Furthermore, the Qing empire was really a Manchu Empire. They Qing used the Chinese Civil Service ie: the previously existing system, to rule China Proper. But the Qing itself established their own part of government to rule these other territories. They emphasized this very much and even kept the revenues they got from these territories as separate from the purse that was spent on China Proper. The rulers (I honestly don't know about the later 1800s when integration of Han into Manchu Bannerunits was much more common) instilled Manchu governors or other locals to rule over the people. They didn't even want to use han peoples for fear of creating too many ethnic problems. The activity was not of massive settlements, but largely of economic extraction. A good book on this topic is by Susan Naquin and Evelyn Rawski called Chinese Society in the Eighteenth Century.
To simply claim that "its been part of them since 1644" is not telling the whole truth.
Now i'm not picking a side (although my own opinion can be kind of read into from my first post), but you act as if China has always controlled this region when often it was simply in name only, and when China controlled it - it was really the Qing who controlled it and tried as hard as they could to appease minorities
ManSnake
Diamond Member
- Oct 26, 2000
- 4,749
- 1
- 0
They have their land now. The population of Tibet is very homogeneous today. More than 90% of the population is ethnic Tibetan. The governor of Tibet is an ethnic Tibetan. Most of the "free Tibet" activists are the descendants of those who were involved in the failed uprising 50 years ago who chose to fled to Nepal/India and they are very small in number.
China's real problem lies with Xinjiang (or some would refer to it as East Turkestan), a region in northwest China with a Muslim majority. There are several separatist groups there who want to achieve independence through terrorism. They carried out a series of bus bombings in several big Chinese cities back in the 90s killing many civilians. Just recently, they tried to hijack a plane and crash it.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,947
- 126
Who are you? I'm not native american or tibetian and i find those remarks very crass. i just want to know if your some weird semi truck driver who makes off the wall statements. I'm not going to lose any sleep over your remarks i just hope you don't ever plan a career in diplomacy, politics or with some aid organization.
Xin Jiang is infinitely more complex than Tibet, and the region isn't even united (due to its own history which is affected by its geography). If you cast off XinJiang and simply "Muslim Terrorism" you are doing the region a big disservice (especially since Islam has been rallied towards simply because "it defines us separately from THEM who don't have it rather than a true interest in the religion...although I would hope that turns into a true interest in the religion) , and simply playing right into the CCP's own hands. And the way current policies are proceeding, they are going to cause people to support those who want outright independence more and more as opposed to having greater autonomy and choice.
Anywhere in the world if you take what is essentially a non native population and place them smack dab in the middle of a group of people, give them the best jobs, make them a minority, and then impose birth restrictions....their perception is no doubt going to be skewed (Rightly or wrongly!)
With XinJiang we HAVE to talk qualitatively because we have no idea how many support outright independence (but by what I've learned and read, its still a minority...but one that is increasing partially due to the above stated resentments), we have no idea (although its still the majority) exactly how many simply want autonomy or how many support current policies (lol probably none for sure). Its not easy to get this information out of people when the CCP takes such a tough stance and labels it all as treason - hell look at Tibet! The Dahli Llama simply wants to run an autonomous region similar to HK and the CCP refuses to enter negotiations with him.
China's border provinces have a lot of issues to resolve and they hoping that taking it with a heavy hand and flooding with Han Chinese is the solution.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
You're right, the Chinese government should commit a planned mass genocide of Tibetans and say "oops we're sorry, lets give you all casinos, there we're cool now right?" Great trade off right? Perform ethnic cleansing of Native Americans then wait a few decades to forget about it, and then give whomever is left over a few casinos to make them happy. Great opportunities for the Native American people!
The Japanese land forces in China got driven back by the Chinese and Soviets during a war that ended with Japan losing all the land they conquered for a short while. So China won its land back. If Japan won the war, they most likely would be in control of the area that they conquered, but they didn't. I mean conquering a small portion of China for a few years is obviously the equivalent of China controlling Tibet for over hundreds of years right?
Oh I guess one tiny little thing... China never signed an agreement with Japan saying that it is part of Japan. Tibet did so with China.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
The Qing (manchu) never had it's own empire before the Qing controlled all of China (they had just small chiefdoms/states), unlike the Mongols who had their own empire before they started conquering. The Manchu were a minority group of China. Even though the Manchus controlled it, they were a minority, and most of China was Han. The Mongolians oppressed the Hans. Even though the Manchus were good conquers, they never ruled an empire, and need the help of Han officials once the Qing Dynasty was created to rule the country. They were learning from the Hans how to run an empire. The Manchus assimilated into Han culture, not the other way around. No one talks in Manchurian anymore, although written language exists.
So in short, you're right... the Qing dynasty (read Chinese) controlled it since 1644. The Qing were a Chinese dynasty unlike the Yuan which was a Mongolian dynasty. That's how I see "China", the Qing dynasty was China too.
You are right that the Qing conquered China - which is why they became the next dynasty. But they tried also very hard to prevent assimilation. This is why they never encouraged migration into these territories (and even the bloody highlands) for a VERRRRY long time. They were even ridiculously stubborn about Manchuria and BANNED immigration up there until the 1850s they started to fear that they may lose the territory to Russia because it was sparsely populated (To them it was to be a pristine land where the imperial household could go relax...kind of like Camp David Today).
You are right MOST of China was han chinese, but areas like Tibet, Mongolia, Xing Jiang, etc are NOT Chinese in both ethnicity and culture and never fell under the same bureaucracy that existed prior to the Qing - the bureaucracy that you refer to as "China's Government". They were ruled SEPERATELY by the Manchus - hence why I emphasize that these areas really belonged to the MANCHU Dynasty as opposed to the Chinese Empire. They DIDN'T allow Chinese to move into many of these areas till the 1800s (when other pressures were simply too great to prevent migration anymore), and these new lands were ruled by the Imperial Household which was complete SEPERATE from the governing civil service. The funds tied to the economic activities were kept seperate from the funds for China Proper. This expansion of the empire was about preventing attacks - they wanted to control enough to prevent invasion...They didn't want another "Genghis Khan" to appear per say, and that was really the extent of their control. You try to make it sound otherwise.
I did give you a book (and just to pre empt your laziness here is a google link http://books.google.com/books?...c&source=gbs_summary_r ) and suggest you read it as it is a very good .
To call the Qing empire "Chinese" as if they are 100% synonymous ignores a lot of the Qing's unique bureaucracy applied only towards the New Territories, Qing rulings to maintain these lands separate from where the Han lived , the Qing's own desire to attempt to prevent assimilation (didn't work well in the end...there is something about tea houses and prostitutes that even battle hardy soldiers found too irresistible
), and a lot of Chinese history that you simply cast aside.
In the end - almost all Manchus DID assimilate (Although by then Han were calling for the ejection of the Qing because "Even if they act like us, they really can't be Chinese!" But the average Manchu assimilated in so well that they just melted into the population easily)...but you are ignoring a huge part of the picture as to what happened...especially with your insistence on "how you see China"
You are right MOST of China was han chinese, but areas like Tibet, Mongolia, Xing Jiang, etc are NOT Chinese in both ethnicity and culture and never fell under the same bureaucracy that existed prior to the Qing - the bureaucracy that you refer to as "China's Government". They were ruled SEPERATELY by the Manchus - hence why I emphasize that these areas really belonged to the MANCHU Dynasty as opposed to the Chinese Empire. They DIDN'T allow Chinese to move into many of these areas till the 1800s (when other pressures were simply too great to prevent migration anymore), and these new lands were ruled by the Imperial Household which was complete SEPERATE from the governing civil service. The funds tied to the economic activities were kept seperate from the funds for China Proper. This expansion of the empire was about preventing attacks - they wanted to control enough to prevent invasion...They didn't want another "Genghis Khan" to appear per say, and that was really the extent of their control. You try to make it sound otherwise.
I did give you a book (and just to pre empt your laziness here is a google link http://books.google.com/books?...c&source=gbs_summary_r ) and suggest you read it as it is a very good .
To call the Qing empire "Chinese" as if they are 100% synonymous ignores a lot of the Qing's unique bureaucracy applied only towards the New Territories, Qing rulings to maintain these lands separate from where the Han lived , the Qing's own desire to attempt to prevent assimilation (didn't work well in the end...there is something about tea houses and prostitutes that even battle hardy soldiers found too irresistible
), and a lot of Chinese history that you simply cast aside.In the end - almost all Manchus DID assimilate (Although by then Han were calling for the ejection of the Qing because "Even if they act like us, they really can't be Chinese!" But the average Manchu assimilated in so well that they just melted into the population easily)...but you are ignoring a huge part of the picture as to what happened...especially with your insistence on "how you see China"
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Originally posted by: magomago
You are right that the Qing conquered China - which is why they became the next dynasty. But they tried also very hard to prevent assimilation. This is why they never encouraged migration into these territories (and even the bloody highlands) for a VERRRRY long time. They were even ridiculously stubborn about Manchuria and BANNED immigration up there until the 1850s they started to fear that they may lose the territory to Russia because it was sparsely populated (To them it was to be a pristine land where the imperial household could go relax...kind of like Camp David Today).
You are right MOST of China was han chinese, but areas like Tibet, Mongolia, Xing Jiang, etc are NOT Chinese in both ethnicity and culture and never fell under the same bureaucracy that existed prior to the Qing - the bureaucracy that you refer to as "China's Government". They were ruled SEPERATELY by the Manchus - hence why I emphasize that these areas really belonged to the MANCHU Dynasty as opposed to the Chinese Empire. They DIDN'T allow Chinese to move into many of these areas till the 1800s (when other pressures were simply too great to prevent migration anymore), and these new lands were ruled by the Imperial Household which was complete SEPERATE from the governing civil service. The funds tied to the economic activities were kept seperate from the funds for China Proper. This expansion of the empire was about preventing attacks - they wanted to control enough to prevent invasion...They didn't want another "Genghis Khan" to appear per say, and that was really the extent of their control. You try to make it sound otherwise.
I did give you a book (and just to pre empt your laziness here is a google link http://books.google.com/books?...c&source=gbs_summary_r ) and suggest you read it as it is a very good .
To call the Qing empire "Chinese" as if they are 100% synonymous ignores a lot of the Qing's unique bureaucracy applied only towards the New Territories, Qing rulings to maintain these lands separate from where the Han lived , the Qing's own desire to attempt to prevent assimilation (didn't work well in the end...there is something about tea houses and prostitutes that even battle hardy soldiers found too irresistible
In the end - almost all Manchus DID assimilate (Although by then Han were calling for the ejection of the Qing because "Even if they act like us, they really can't be Chinese!" But the average Manchu assimilated in so well that they just melted into the population easily)...but you are ignoring a huge part of the picture as to what happened...especially with your insistence on "how you see China"
Even Qing emperors tried to assimilate into the Chinese system. Emperor Qian Long (4th emperor of Qing), one of the best poets/painters during the time, wrote in Han and painted Chinese paintings. He wanted to assimilate into Chinese culture. But that's not the real point.
Even though Tibet had a separate system under Qing rule, it still in the end belonged to the Manchus/Qing (read Chinese). Even today China has a different system for Tibet than the rest of China, and it's still officially recognized as part of China.
But honestly I'm not really sure how your argument would suggest that Tibet was not part of China during the Qing dynasty, if that's your point at all. Manchus are still part of the Chinese legacy/empire, if that clears anything up. The Manchus didn't have a real legacy before the Qing dynasty, which became part of the Chinese legacy/empire.
Damn, you are so polarized that you somehow assumed I was arguing that Tibet was never part of China. No - I'm arguing that your knowledge as to the situation is sooo limited that you can't even get facts pertaining to the history of China correct. I'm no scholar at all either, but I'm not running falsely making it seem as if China was running the show in Tibet since the mid 1600s. ??????!
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Well I just stopped at this WiFi enabled McDonalds out in Iowa for a break before I drive my cargo load off to Chicago. My wife and two kids live out in my trailer out there so I can't wait to see them cause I need to get my kids new sets of wife beaters........... right........
You think my remarks are crass and off the wall? Have you even read any other P&N posts? There's nothing wrong with my statements and I'm not personally attacking anyone or calling people who I don't agree with fascists. Compared to most of the posts I'm very civil. Just because my views differ from yours (and are likely resembled among millions more Chinese people) or you don't want to understand my views doesn't make them "crass" or any less significant than the views of mainstream western media.
It also doesn't make me any less qualified for running for a diplomatic, political, or aid organization. You don't think politicians have any "crass" or off the wall statements? Diplomats take the views of their administration's policy, and it doesn't matter what they personally believe. Aid organizations..... are you suggesting I would deny humanitarian aid or support to Tibetans who need it just because of my views? Now that would be crass and off the wall.
sunzt
Diamond Member
- Nov 27, 2003
- 3,076
- 3
- 81
Ok so we both agree that Tibet has been part of China since the Qing dynasty.
It doesn't even matter whether or not Tibet was ruled differently. It still doesn't change the history that clearly shows Tibet has been part of China for hundreds of years.
I'm not trying to argue who ran the show inside Tibet and I never said China ran the show inside Tibet. I only wanted to make clear that Tibet has been part of China since the Qing dynasty regardless of what the government system was like inside Tibet. You can say that a separate system ran the show inside Tibet, but Tibet still belonged to China, and when the Nationalists took over China, Tibet; Xing Jiang; Taiwan; and everything of the Qing dynasty came with it.
MadRat
Lifer
- Oct 14, 1999
- 11,910
- 238
- 106
You obviously have never met Native Americans as they call themselves. They were hardly native to the country any more than the people that came from abroad. And they've hardly helped themselves out of their quagmire. These people remain poor if they choose to stay on the reservations, otherwise they enjoy every bit the same opportunities as the rest of the U.S. citizens... only they have a myriad of sweet deals when it comes to financing and secondary schooling. If they do not take advantage of the sweet deals it is their own tough luck. They leave money unspent that is free to them. The waste is their own silent protest over something long since out of their control.
The Chinese led the vacuum filling but hardly are responsible for repulsing the Japanese. The Soviets and Americans definitely caused the war to end. The Chinese could never have liberated themselves. In hindsight would it of been more wise to leave the Nipponese invaders there? By using the gist of your own opinions on Tibet as the template it would have been no different.
The crux of the matter is that the Japanese did get peace agreements signed during their occupation by puppet rulers that they either installed or by accommodating authorities they found best to be left in place. They treated Chinese people no different than the Chinese treat the Tibetans, using a sham to justify their occupation. Yet you clearly see the problem in the aforementioned example. How very kind of you to point out Native Americans and yet hold a double standard.
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,442
- 7,506
- 136
Jaskalas
Lifer
- Jun 23, 2004
- 33,442
- 7,506
- 136
In light of the reference and comparison between Tibet and Palestinians, I feel the need to clarify a point.
I say an oppressed people who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees should remind Americans of, themselves. The right of self determination should be the right of all men.
That oppression when resolved by secession is the right of all men, as spelled out by our declaration of independence.
That does not condone for example, Germany destroying and taking over Europe in WW2 because Europe ?oppressed? it. That does not condone aggressive acts of war, be they conventional or terrorism. It only covers the right to secede, as our forefathers declared the self evident right of all men.
To twist secession to justify aggression is an abomination to the meaning of self determination. That is why it applies to Tibet and why it might not apply to another.
I say an oppressed people who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees should remind Americans of, themselves. The right of self determination should be the right of all men.
That oppression when resolved by secession is the right of all men, as spelled out by our declaration of independence.
That does not condone for example, Germany destroying and taking over Europe in WW2 because Europe ?oppressed? it. That does not condone aggressive acts of war, be they conventional or terrorism. It only covers the right to secede, as our forefathers declared the self evident right of all men.
To twist secession to justify aggression is an abomination to the meaning of self determination. That is why it applies to Tibet and why it might not apply to another.
Wealth, jobs, MODERNIZATION HAAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHH!!!!!!!!!!
Please get your head out of your collectivist backside
To quote a report by the Heritage foundation
"If the matter of Tibet's sovereignty is murky, the question about the PRC's treatment of Tibetans is all too clear. After invading Tibet in 1950, the Chinese communists killed over one million Tibetans, destroyed over 6,000 monasteries, and turned Tibet's northeastern province, Amdo, into a gulag housing, by one estimate, up to ten million people. A quarter of a million Chinese troops remain stationed in Tibet. In addition, some 7.5 million Chinese have responded to Beijing's incentives to relocate to Tibet; they now outnumber the 6 million Tibetans. Through what has been termed Chinese apartheid, ethnic Tibetans now have a lower life expectancy, literacy rate, and per capita income than Chinese inhabitants of Tibet"
Link:http://www.heritage.org/Resear...ndthePacific/EM177.cfm
What modernization have the Han brought. The entire country's growth rate has been helped by opening up a giant sweatshop for corporate america. What have the Han done to modernize Tibet.. open up a few more sweatshops in Tibet. Wow great tradeoff for destroying an entire culture and way of life.
Tibetans dont need China. Tibetans dont need any body. The dalai lama and his monks have hundreds of thousands of visitors each year coming to india to visit them. That money should be going to the tibetan economy and not the indian economy.
from what I have read so far, this event looks like simple riot of Tibetans expressing their anger toward Chinese government for race inequity, wealth distribution rather than independent movement protest. It's small scale, unorganized, and the aim is mainly targeted at burning and looting shops, there was no banners or mass movement shouting "free Tibet", instead I see lot of young people throwing rocks and burning shops, I think this event is very similar to the summer riot in France, Tibetans are very angry at inequities when they see development and wealth are all around them but for themselves. some international groups and locals take advantage of the event, call it independent protest, which i think is exaggerated from all the description of events. I really think Chinese government should at least open Tibet up for news journalists to let people know what really going on there, instead of making theories and claims, let face it, China is not letting go of Tibet, unless U.S, or E.U. invaded it, so the least it can do is not to keep international communities in dark, that way they might not look totally bad like they now
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 10K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter