iConflict

The author implies that Tibet was under China's countrol only when foreigners ruled China, and thus Tibet was not a part of China.
-
But such assertion is totally baseless. And the author is lack of reasonning ability and common knowledge of history (or he/she pretend to be like this).
-
First, it's ridiculous to say Mongolians and Manchus are not Chinese.
---We know until today Manchus live in only China as a ethnic. They started to speak Chinese and studied Confucianism when they started their rule over China. (And some guys, do not lie about 'cultural genocide' again!)How can one say they are not Chinese?
---The majority of Mongolians (62%) still lived in China today.
Mongolia was divided by Soviet Union (in order to creat a strategic buffer between it and China) during the most difficult time of China - facing invasion from Japanese.
---
Inner Mongolia in China:
-population (only Mongolian): 4,238,300 (in 2006) 832,000 (in 1947)
-area:1,560,000 sq.km.
P.R.Mongolia:
-population: about 2,600,000 (total population) (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Mongolia)
-area:1,180,000 sq.km.
--------------

Second, the author just skipped China's rule over Tibet during China Dynasty of Ming (in which the governers are primarily Hans).
He/she just say:
----
When a dynasty was indeed ethnically Han, such as Ming (founded between the Yang and Qing empires), Tibet had scant connection to Chinese rulers.
----
The auther tried to use such obscure words to give you a wrong impression that Tibet is not under the rule of Ming.
The fact is:
In 1368, Ming's first emperor claimed his enthronement.
In 1370, northwest Tibetans and some others accepted Ming's rule over them.
In 1373, the entire Tibet was under the rule of Ming.
During the whole Ming Dynasty, government officers were mostly recommended by Tibetans and then granted by Han's emperor, just like what happened in Qing Dynasty.
-----
So, Tibet was obviously a part of China during MIng Dynasty, just as in Yuan and Qing Dynasties.

The author seems to believe a 108-kilometre blacktop road to facilitate travel to Everest is not environmentally acceptable.
But why???
Just think about how many kilometers of blacktop road were in other countries (US, Eu, or Japan), why there can not be one such road in Tibet?
Environment protection?
Is that a good excuse to avoid building of road?
Then the auther must destroy all road in his/her country first.
I do not think the environment of the author's country is much less important than that of Tibet.

Some westerners (just as the author) simply want Tibet to be a absolutely unpolluted and unexploited place, then they can make their tours in Tibet, just as in Yellowstone National Park in US, and seek for the so called Shangerila in their imagination.
But they must notice their hypocrisy in such pursuit of a pristine Tibet.
No pollution means no industry, no mining, no electricity, no automobile, no modern road or railway.
Their pursuit of a pristine Tibet in fact asks Tibetans to give up all advantages of modern civilization, and live in a Zoo called 'Shangerila' for their view.

About Olympic Games:
-1980 Moscow Game was boycotted by many countries including CHINA, for USSR's war in Afghanistan during these years.
-1984 USSR called on to boycott Los Angeles Games, but China refused to take part in such boycott without decent reason, and attended 1984 Olympics.
------
Now it's time for Games in China.
Then some hypocrites are trying to find excuses to boycott it.
--
Darfur? There was slaughter. But that does not take any business of China!
Their only evidence to say about 'China gives support to genocide' is that China refuse to take any action to give diplomatic press on Sudan government.
But then what? Is that China's duty to do that? Where is Americans? They launched war over Iraq without permission from UN in 2003. Why didn't they make actions in Darfur? Why do some guys assert China should take the responsibility?
---
Tibet?
I said too much about that, and I do not want to repeat.
After all, Tibet is not a recent topic.
Now we already spend billions of dollars preparing for the Games. Some guys suddenly crying out 'Free Tibet. Do not go to Beijing Games'.
How disgusting is that!

evanstle said: The author implies that Tibet was under China's countrol only when foreigners ruled China, and thus Tibet was not a part of China.
But such assertion is totally baseless. And the author is lack of reasonning ability and common knowledge of history (or he/she pretend to be like this).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tibet's history can be best told by Tbetans themselves only that if world and especially CCP let us to... But

HHDL aways says that we are not here to make or remake the history. Historically Tibet was independent and soveriegn nation with its own social system unique to its environment. You say Yuan and Qing dynasties having influence on Tibet... like Tibet and Mongolia, relation to the chinese was only on religious aspect. There is no use for me to listen to the distorted tales CCP has accustomed your whole thinking to.
You claim Mongolian a chinese race??? I lived in PR MOngolia for eight years and didn't even have a pinch of mention in their own history that they are chinese..On the contrary they have their own glorous histories of dominance over china for many centuries. ..Physically and mentally too they look more like Tibetans than chinese. .Please stop dwelling on an illusive dream created by CCP.

Leaving history aside, CCP starting dialogue with HHDL to sort out a solution for Tibet, unless it does, so every thing the CCP does to show its sumpremacy over others will look hollow.

Nothing is right in Tibet and even worse post 14:3..


---------------------------

If your western countries really believe that Tibet is NOT part of China, why not just recognize it is an independent country. The fact is there is no single government does so. If China is a monster, you will have to live with this stronger and stronger monster.

My wife is a Mongolian Chinese. Her nationality is Chinese and her ethnicity is Mongolian. She is very prond of her Mongolian people and also quite happy with the fact that she is a Chinese. More than 60% of ethnic Mongolians are Chinese, which is not an illusive dream but a fact. It's also true that people in PR Mongolia are not Chinese now although it was part of China 100 years ago.

Evanstle didn't say Mongolian is a Chinese race, obviously he is not talking about PR Mongolia where you claim you have lived for 8 years. Actually, all Chinese ethnic peoples, even Koreans and Japenese are classified as so called "mongoloid race", which is a term created by western scholars.

China has many ethnic peoples, and they have lived together for many many years. Each ethnic people has its own ups and downs. It looks that Kushh quite admires Mongolia's "own glorous histories of dominance over china for many centuries". If you believe dominace is something very glorious, i don't think you hypocrite are qualified to criticize China.

Evanstle said:

So, Tibet was obviously a part of China during MIng Dynasty, just as in Yuan and Qing Dynasties.

==================================

just a comment, if you don't mind.

tibet as a region within the chinese people's republic is a political fact of the present day.

it is no less factual than tibet being part of the yuan, ming, and qing dynasties. people can question it all they like, but it is factual.

similarly, we can question why there are people of european descent in america, australia, new zealand, etc. but it is a fact.

the point is, being part of a political entity has nothing to do with ethnicity. it is about present realities.

for example, the official histories of china has always INCLUDED the mongol and manchu dynasties, and many smaller dynasties established by non-han nationalities during the period from the three kingdoms to the song dynasty.

it is the political reality, and not an ethnic issue, that the yuan and qing dynasties are part of the official histories of china.

fact is the fact, whether foreigners like kushh like it or not.

Hey guys, click the link:
http://hi.baidu.com/lisan1233/blog/item/44a0409010c6518da877a40c.html
Good point.
Tibet doesn't belong to Ming Dynasty, as well as it belongs to China in Ming Dynasty.

eguda said: Hey guys, click the link:
http://hi.baidu.com/lisan1233/blog/item/44a0409010c6518da877a40c.html
Good point.
Tibet doesn't belong to Ming Dynasty, as well as it belongs to China in Ming Dynasty.
---------------------------


Dear Eguda,

It doesn't matter whether Tibet belonged to Ming or not. It is historial matter. histories have many loopholes.

At the present time. Either Tibet should belong to Tibetans or to China this is the burning question.

...Incase china wants to belong it, then China should take care of it, love it like a mother does it to its child. In other word give more freedom so that they won't care whoever is managing it.

eguda,
again in that article, the author just said 'the relation between Ming and Tibet was weak'.
But the author of that article also said: 'Before Qing Dynasty, China consisted of at least 2 different sovereignty powers. So any historic country should not be regarded as today's China.'
You can find obviously the author don't think Ming is China.
So, that's another kind of historical recognition of China.
That's not evidence to 'Tibet was not a part of China'.

Some drunken historians may write that China was part of Tibet. Will you trust that History or the historian?

It is best to leave the History as it was and is. and don't give this topic to tongsampah to decide, he would take years to twist and turn, again twist and again turn and twist and again turn and twist... by the time there wouldn't be any geography left to relate the history to...

Try to trust the who brings you will mutually agreeable proposals.

Soory for dashed typing:

Try to trust the living person who brings you the mutually agreeable proposals.

Sun Yat-sen mentioned that the han, manchu, hui, mongolian and tibetan people are the "five fingers" of china.

Sun Yat-sen died in 1925, way before 1950.

therefore, what happened in 1950, was simply a re-exertion of central control over tibet.

no amount of twisting and turning can change the fact that the central government of china had always regarded tibet as part of its territory, even before the so called "invasion" of 1950.

who iwas Sun Yat-sen, is he the sun ...all pervading?

I can also claim tha Indian, Nepali, Pakisthani, Bangladeshi and Burmese are the five hand Fingers of Tibet and Chinese, korean, Japanese, Mongolian and veitnamese are the five foot fingers of Tibet. And I die after some 20-30 years and would this mentioning ever be taken as a historical guide to claim Tibets soveriegnity over these countries??

hmm......of course mister sun was not all pervading.
never even said he was.

the essense of the message is not simply mister sun's claim, but to inform that pre-1950, it was ALREADY the view of the central government that tibet was within china.

and that has always been the view ever since yuan times, whether or not the central government has the resources to exert that control.

therefore, retaking tibet was not something new, but had always been the viewpoint of the central government that tibet was within china territory.

Dwelling on the past makes everybody confused as there will be no final verdit as to whose version should be taken as standard. Only a war can decide...leaviing so many dead, and which ever side died less will be crowned the winner and than with its blooded soaked hand will write a new chapter in the history.

As far as the territorial control is concerned, let alone Yuan, Ming and Quing...as latest as 1959, most part of the western Tibet is not properly governed politically even by the so called Feudal Governent of Tibet besides collecting revenue. Only the religious and cultural influence in their day today life made them closer to Tibet proper. The border demarcation then was fluid and that was the reason why in 1962 Sini-Indian war broke out.

So digging history will make both..India and China bow with shame as they built their modern history on the foundation of lies and deciet.

You both sides know well!!!! Since you both live in a glass house, you avoid as much as possible not to throw stone at each other!!!!!

kushh said: Dwelling on the past makes everybody confused as there will be no final verdit as to whose version should be taken as standard.

===================================


history is only a mere reference.
what is there to be confused about?

the present day reality is the verdict.

Whose history?

Chinese, Indian, Tibetan, Mongolian, British, German.....

all of which say different things about Tibet.

kushh wrote: Whose history?

=================================


history is a mere reference, a viewpoint.

even if there be a thousand versions,
it doesn't change the fact that tibet is today within china territory.