Talk:Tibet/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions about Tibet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Page being edited by propagandists on both sides of the Tibetan Issue

Sorry to say but this page is being edited and re-edited by propagandists on both sides of the Tibetan issue. With prayers that the negativity that leads to true ignorance be dispelled, I've removed on particularly offensive propagandistic phrase. Best to just keep to non-politicized information here. To quote from guidelines from Wiki ("Guide to Creating Your First Article"):

"Things to Avoid: Personal essays or original research: Wikipedia surveys existing human knowledge; it is not a place to publish new work. Do not write articles that present your own original theories, opinions, or insights, even if you can support them by reference to accepted work."

Also, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

"One of the five pillars that form the foundation for all Wikipedia policies and guidelines is Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. In a nutshell, this means all Wikipedia articles must be written from a detached standpoint, representing views fairly and without bias. This includes all the types of pages in the encyclopedia (articles, maps, reader-facing templates, categories, and portals, etc.)."

Magwep 16:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)magwep 10-06-06

Moral Question: Should the United States exist?

Who deleted the discussion on the suffering of the Tibetans caused by the lamas and their culture, and why? Is there a suppression of facts on these pages? 6 Oct 06

No wonder China bans pictures of the Dalai Lama! They don't want Tibetans to know that he looks Chinese!Kauffner 10:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

--- No. That was not the reason. In the UK, the voice of the Gerry Adams of the IRA was banned in broadcasts and an actor had to be used as a voice-over. Different countries try out different methods to keep the peace within their territory. 13 Sep 06.

If you really think the ban is justified, shouldn't you turn yourself in? You have apparently looked at his picture.Kauffner 05:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Turn myself in where? 14 Sep 06

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)

If you mean the world's greatest democracy is the USA, then you are wrong. The world's greatest democracy is modern India. 13 Sep 06

What is this rubbish about the Chinese killing off the Tibetans? What was the life-expectancy of a Tibetan at birth in the time of the lama theocracy? 30 years or there abouts, if lucky? The people, who these exiles claimed were killed, had they really died, would have died naturally- the sums certainly look right for the natural order of things for Tibetan mortality statistics. The work of the Chinese has increased life-expectancy for the Tibetans dramatically. Millions of Tibetans have the Chinese to thank for being alive today because otherwise under the lamas they would have died long ago. 29 Sep 06

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)

Actually every province in China already have self-determination powers in much the same way as the individual states of the USA. 19 Sep 06

I find this an astonishing claim. Do you know nothing about how the PRC government operates? Under the "party-state" system, the governors are figureheads and the legislatures are shams. The party secretary is the boss of the province or region. Party secretaries are typically communist party loyalists from outside the province who owe their postion purely to appointment by Beijing.Kauffner 02:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The same can be said of any country. The country as a whole is governed as a federal unit, but the regions all have self-determination powers. 3 Oct 06

Are you saying that Republican Governor of california, tough guy Arnie is nothing but a Republican puppet of the Republican administration in Washington, because he is a member of the Republican Party? All regional administrators within a national boundary have degrees of autonomy whether in China or the USA. 4 Oct 06

Are you for real here? A party secretary is an outsider appointed by Beijing. He's not responsible to anyone in the province. It follows that a Chinese province does not have self-determination, even when a local administrator strikes out on his own. Schwarzenegger was elected by the people of California, not appointed by the Republican Party Central Committee in Washington. Even if you accept Chinese elections as legitimate, party secretary is not an elected position. A Chinese governor is usually also the deputy party secretary, so he has some authority as a result of that position. But the governor title by itself is an empty one. It is often given out just allow the government to brag about how many women and minorities it appoints.Kauffner 12:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Who said an American State governor and a Chinese Provincial Governor hold the same office? A mayor in a UK city is not the same office as a mayor in a US city. Each Chinese province has autonomy: Running of schools, health, transport etc., just as in other countries. 4 Oct 06

Will the Republicans finance Arnie if he went against Republican policies? Is he governor because he's Arnie or because he's Republican? Arnie will be back- as a Democrat? 4 Oct 06

'An outsider'? So's Arnie, he's Austrian not Californian.

Say what? Arnie was living in California for many years before he became governor. His support comes from Republicans in California. I was in China when Hu Jintao was elected president. The election was treated like a state secret. News websites were blocked for weeks. I would ask, "Do you plan to vote in the election tomorrow?" and it was like "Election? What election?" I ask, "Do you prefer Hu Jintao or Jiang Zemin?" I don't most Chinese had even heard the name "Hu Jintao" until after he actually become president. That was weeks after the election and months after he was nominated by the Communist Party Central Committee (which is as good as being elected).Kauffner 03:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

People hear about US elections because the elections are bought with money; then afterwards people complain of the money wasted on them. 5 Oct 06

Kauffner: You raised a very good point. Herein lies the philosophical difference between current Chinese and US leaders. Is it better to work quietly together and get the right results, or shout and brag about what you are going to do, and never get the job done? Under the Chinese system, there is room for Bush and Gore to work together, but under the US system one of them had to be the loser. Could anyone say one system is better than the other? 6 Oct 06

Working together? I wonder if that's how Chen Liangyu (陈良宇) would put it. He was boss of Shanghai and a Politburo member until last week. Now he is in secret detainment, appearently just because he was appointed by Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao wants show everyone that's he's the boss now.Kauffner 05:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Kauffer: Are you thick or just not quite right in the head? Everyone else knows why Chen Liangyu was detained with the exception of you. 7 Oct 06.

81.131.82.85 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Why don't you ask him (Chen) then?

Kauffer: There are people out there who swear Elvis is alive. Do you believe that too? When was the last time you saw a UFO then?

China blocks websites; the America government read your emails, check which website you've been to and tap your phone calls. So who's right and who's wrong? 9 Oct 06

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. Th ε 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.

And how many Tibetans died during the rule of the lamas? Millions and millions. The lama theocracy did not and do not have plans on how to feed the Tibetans, and indeed expected alms from ordinary people to keep them alive. The lama theocracy is undemocratic and the chief is chosen by rolling and weighing lumps of dough; may be this is a better way than the US system as demonstrated by the 2000 US presidential election. 3 Oct 06

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 have a problem with your argument 'Europe invading China again', but I have no problems with 'millions and millions of Europeans settling in China'. Millions and millions of people of foreign origin had settled in China historically. Take the modern Huis, they had Arabs and Persian ancestory, but now apart from their larger noses look like any other Chinese, and of course they have retained their religion. The Jews have settled in China, and if you go back far enough so it would seem some Greeks and Romans. The Nestorian Christians have settled in China- that is to say due to dogmatic differences, these people were labelled as heretics by their original church and had to move, but were of course not labelled heretics by the Chinese (so whose society was freer and more democratic?). And wasn't Marco Polo in China? China has always been the great melting pot of human genetics and cultures. Historically the Chinese had no problems with the idea that a few million Europeans settled in China, but the reverse could not be said of the European attitude of having a few million Chinese settle in Europe or indeed North America. 4 Oct 06.

There is no problems with Europeans settling in China. The problems began when Europeans wanted to rule China. This appears to be a European attitude- everywhere they go they want to be boss. Then the Japanese joined them. 8 Oct 06.

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 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)

It is not about the feeling of insecurity. It has long been the West's military strategy that wars are inevitable; that there will always be wars. Given this acceptance it is better to have wars as far away from their doorstep as possible, otherwise it will happen in their own houses. If there are no wars at any one time, then start one as far away from home as possible. Take the wars happening around the world in the past 20 years. They all have Western participitation in one form or another. The Chinese are merely preventing anyone from starting a war in its own territory, very much the same as the West's strategy. Does the USA feel secure after 9-11? 27 Sep 06.

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)

Tibetans have always fled Tibet. In the past they fled to the east to be employed as the clergy in the Qing empire. Yes, there are still Tibetans who head east. You don't need to tell the Tibetans that Tibet is a harsh land and that a better living could be made elsewhere. What do you think is the primary reason for the redistribution of the world's population through migration? 3 Oct 06

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

Very interesting point raised by Ian, as for myself, I studied in China untile graduated from primary school, then went to India and I prefer Tibetan right to self-determination to any sort of political relation with China, we don't want the "Chinese Motherland", rather we want to see the "Tibetan Fatherland"! REcently, a Tibetan dude from RebKong in Tso Ngo (In Chinese, Qinghai) came to study in our university in the US, he had an interesting argument with the new Chinese student. The argument started in this way. We have program for all freshman international students to introduce themseves on the stage under the banner of their national flag. The Chinese girl asked the Tibetan student to hold the Chinese Flag with her. Tibetan student refused to hold the Red Chinese Flag, in stead he held the Tibetan Flag. THe girl called him "traitor", but the Tibetan guy nicely told her, "There is a Tibetan Flag in this university , and I am a Tibetan, so I am holding it. If you want to complain, then go to the concerned authority for the very presence of Tibetan Flag".

pk

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)

81.131.82.85 00:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC) How many people 'flee' the US, Europe, Australia etc every year? You would call this emigration. Tibetans don't flee China, they emigrate. Why don't the West just give these people visas so that they go legally instead of becoming illegal immigrants or labelled as having 'fled'? It is the West and not China who denies the freedom of these people to travel.

This is not the first time case because myself left Tibet in 1992, therefore, I am writing and expressing my thoughts from a Tibetan from Tibet's point of view, not that just the thoughts of new generation Tibetan who are born in exile and never saw Tibet whatsoever.

I don't think this is just a singled out sample that justify our assertion to independence, rather this is widespread and held hope and wish that is in majority Tibetan's mind no matter under whatever circumstances live through at present.

Another instances, I don't want to mention the organizers about this talk which I actually participated. There is a get together sort of days between Tibetan students from Tibet and Tibetans who were born in exile, either in Nepal, India, or the west. What I experienced at these gatherings is, there is no differences between our thoughts and hope for the future of Tibet. The gathering is not just comprised of bunch of undergaduates, in fact, it is variety of people with various intellectual backgrounds. There were undergraduates, grauates, phds, and scholars. It was a very private gathering and it is actually held almost every year. (Here I exerise my right not to mention the people and organization who are responsible for such a gathering for the safety of those came fom Tibet and disruption of such events in the future).

Through such gatherings, we just learn the on the ground realities in Tibet. Moreover, my own families live in Tibet, so I am not suffering from limited events for my sample space.

Anyway, it will be really good if China ever has the courage to go ahead with a mass plebescite or referendum under the monitor of certain international organization. In this way, we don't have to argue who has more sample space or who has not, who is right or who is wrong. Ultimately, Tibetans inside Tibet are the backbone of Tibetan Freedom Struggle. We, the Tibetans, outside Tibet, merely act as a spokesperson for them, so their voice against injustice done by the CCP is heard in the international comunity. Therefore, we are ready to respect their views about Tibet's future in whatever kind of political fashion they want.

Finally, let push forward for a REFEREMDUM! Tibetans Government in Exile has been telling China do it without either side interference, rather under an international supervision. Why does China evade such a move? If China is right and they have the legitimacy from the TIbetan public, I think it is easy for them to rule the region without much trouble as they are being faced with overseas Tibetans!

pk

--194.60.106.5 10:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)===Self-determination===

PK:

Very interesting experience that you encounter. But your overseas study experience in U.S. precisely shows that most of the propaganda from Dharamsala is just propaganda. According to all those pro-Tibet websites, all Tibetans inside China are deprived of any opportunity and just do menial jobs that Hans don't want to work. But according to your narration, there are quite a few Tibetans from China who can afford to study overseas.

Well, so far I have not encountered any East Timorese, Kashmiri, Chechyans,.....who can afford to study in U.S. Tibetans from China are really lucky since they can do so even though they are supposedly heavily oppressed. By the way, according to Dharamsala, Tibetans inside China are supposedly earning less than US$1/day. Where do those Tibetan parents find the money to buy their kids the air tickets to U.S.? 64.203.20.215 06:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

{64.203.20.215|64.203.20.215} Oh, I am objective, but you are trying to comvince me what you are trying to say is the truth. You are trying to put your thoughts into my mouth. I don't need to be fed, I was fed up with CCP's feeding false information. The issue is again a totally a different issue and you are not aware of it. You simply making assumptions, it is not a matter of academic debate or making certains axioms like we do in math and starting on these foundational axioms, rather it is a fact which you are completely ignorant of. Let me clarify, I am very glad to do it and you can do independent research on it as well.

These days, there are a lot of foreign NGO's operating in Tibet who are mainly concerned with Tibetan culture. Tibetan students who are working for them on contract, after finishing the contract, the NGOs usually sponsor them to study abroad. One of the NGOs, such as Trace Foundation is a prominent example to raise here.

Also every school in US is not demanding money from poor people in order to get schooled here. I promise, there are schools where there is work-study program such as mine and I don't want to mention mine by name. Such school gives scholarships to international students provided they work certain hounrs every week and total hours for a semester for free education. My friends came here on this program. THERE ARE also few CHinese students on such program as well, they are not paying cents from their parents banks either! THerefore, my friend is in the same boat as me and the other Chinese students. He also showed me a list of his classmates studying abroad in various countries for varying degree on scholarships.

Therefore, don't get surprised when you see a numbers of Tibetan students studying abroad, and give the credit of their ability to study abroad to the CHinese Government's propaganda of financial development in Tibet, thus, Tibetans are financially well-off as you are trying to prove above there. The truth is other way round. If I am a non-Tibetan, you could probably convince me, but I am not a foreigner and I am someone who is concerned with Tibet and Tibetans, so making assumptions like you do only portrays yourself a propagandist who is disregarding the fact and making false argument.

A Side Note: The information from Dharamsala is usually based on the news through new-arrivals from Tibet. It can be varified independently and you can do it. But news of China cannot be varified by people coz anyone who is without Chinese Government Notice or permission cannot go to Tibet, if one attempts, it is labelled illegal. Even after entering into Tibet, there are places that Chinese governemnt wants you to have access and shut up off from so called restricted areas. So, it is hard to varify the information comes from Beijing. Is Beijing's Information a reality which cannot be varified by independent researchers or Dharamsala's news a propaganda which can be verified by anyone who is interested? Specially you are most welcome to do it.

When Tibetan Writer Oser based in Beijing, wrote some information about reality in Tibet in her blog on www.tibetcul.net, her blog was banned. Her Book "Note on Tibet" and her photobook about destructions during cultural revolution were also banned in China. Even she, as an editor of one of Tibetan Literature in TAR, cannot verify the reality in Tibet, what kind of verification of Information you are talking about? She did not talk about "INDEPENDENCE", she simply reflected on "CURRENT REALITIES, HISTORY DURING CULTURAL REVOLUTION, TIBET'S SPIRITUALITY". Then how come suddenly ghost of "POLITIC" entered into CCP's mind? The action of CCP again confirmed Tibetans' claim of independence and current reality in Tibet which CCP does not want to be revealed. So, it is called the top "NATIONAL SECRET". I think CCP has too many secrets to be hidden safely. Can Fa lun Gong persecution be verified independently? Can Gao Zhi Sheng' disappearance be verified independently? Can the blind man activist's condition be varified independently? Amongst all these so called restricted informations and false propaganda bombarded by CCP makes "TRUTH" looks "UNTRUTH". THat is the case for now! Ultimately, truth will come out in history, no one can cover it!

PK

PK:

I hate to say this, but you really sound like a CCP propagandist. You wrote These days, there are a lot of foreign NGO's operating in Tibet who are mainly concerned with Tibetan culture. How can that be true? Everybody (at least most posters here) knows that China is in Tibet to commit cultural genocide. How can they allow bunch of foreign NGOs operating in Tibet to preserve/promote Tibetan culture and even sponsor Tibetan students for overseas study? China doesn't even allow any Tibetans to flee Tibet on the rugged trek over Himalayas, but it would allow you to study overseas under sponsorship of foreign NGOs?Ian-- 00:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The idea of race from a European and Japanese prospective is totally different from a Chinese prospective. The Chinese and Tibetans are not of a different race. They are both Mongoloids. The Chinese do not share the same racist sentiments as the Europeans, especially Americans of European descent. It has also been a Chinese practice to be able to marry other races in wherever they emigrated to, be it the Carribeans, Thailand, Vietnam, Europe, America, Africa, etc, and count the off-springs as Chinese. Take a look at the 'black' Chinese in Jamaica; some of them may appear black, but if they wanted to be counted as Chinese because they have some Chinese ancestry, they are most welcome by the Chinese. This is unlike the American view that a drop of Black blood in your veins make you Black; Black being regarded as a lower status than White socially and physically. It is also the practice of the Chinese historically to allow and encourage marriages of peoples they conquered, with the Chinese.

It is entirely wrong of American readers above to assume that because the White Americans have racist views due to the fact they are the dominant group in their country, then the Han Chinese, who are the dominant group in China, also must have similar racist views. It may be true that the Whites in America have racist views about other American groups, this is not true with the Han Chinese in China about other groups in China.

The views of some of the Tibetans are formed because they have been brain-washed into believing that they are born to suffer by their culture and enhanced by foreign propaganda; and because they do suffer, they think that must have been caused by the Chinese. In fact their suffering is caused by their culture and not the Han Chinese.

8 Sep 06

What are Tibetan and Chinese cultures? Buddhism came from India, so should the Tibetan throw that out? Cultures, languages and everything evolve. Our Tibetan friends should not be trapped into believing that they must remain stagnant because they have a 'culture' to preserve, after all the culture they think they have today did not actually originate with them.

Actually the historically modern political differences between the Chinese and the Tibetans in exiles are not caused by the Chinese or Tibetan peoples. It is in fact caused by the British. The British sought to extend their empire into Tibet from India. This would have been a lot easier, on paper at least, if an argument was made that Tibet was not a part of China, and thus China should not interfere with this British policy. Even today the British position is that Tibet is a separate country to China. Although on the global order, Britain is no longer as powerful as she used to be, she is still very powerful in the UN and very politically skilled in stirring and divide-and-rule diplomacy, as could be seen in recent Midle East wars. It would be very interesting to see the British reaction if some outsider nation did the same thing to the UK by stirring up separatist activities for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales within the UK.

8 Sep 06

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 has already been freed. It has been freed of the slavery and suffering imposed upon the Tibetan people by the Tibetan theocracy headed by the Dalai Lama. So called pro-Dalai Lama Westerners should examine the lives of people living under the Tibetan theocracy and understand the truth before continuing the false propaganda they spread.

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)

Who said Tibet was and is a Shangrila? It must be your fantasized notion that constructed it, now you are deconstructing it which means you are a FOOL!

PK

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!!!!!!

...Tibet has already been freed. It has been freed of the slavery and suffering imposed upon the Tibetan people by the Tibetan theocracy headed by the Dalai Lama. So called pro-Dalai Lama Westerners should examine the lives of people living under the Tibetan theocracy and understand the truth before continuing the false propaganda they spread. 11 Sep 06

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!!!!!

Why don't you go and stir up support for the splitting up of Switzerland into separate countries based on the languages of French, Italian, Switzdeutsch and Romansch spoken there, and leave other people's countries alone? 13 Sep 06

Why are you shouting out this issue as a Swiss? You Swiss don't want immigrants, you don't want asylum seekers, do you think other countries will take any notice of what you have to say? As you say you support the Tibetans in exile, why don't you hypocritical Swiss just take a few thousands of them into Switzerland? You don't really care about these people. The Chinese government is the only people to care for and to improve the lot of the Tibetan people. You hypocrites should just stay in your mountains and continue to keep the rest of the world outside, like you do best. You live in a glass house, so don't throw stones. 25 Sep 06

I would very easily say the same, (that this article be written by Chinese hands) it seems as though huge amounts of technicallity get into every aspect of the discussion and that tends to bury the obvious truth. And who cares if multiple exclamation marks is a sure sign of madness. We're mad at China!Withywindle 09:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

"Multiple exclamation marks is a sure sign of madness." -- Terry Pratchett, Maskerade =D --Sumple (Talk) 11:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Freedom? In the West we are free to pay taxes: Taxes on your income, taxes on your house, taxes on your car, taxes on water, taxes on sewages, taxes on garbage, taxes on cigarettes, taxes on alcohol, taxes on petrol, taxes on food, taxes on goods, taxes when you die, and I am sure if they can find a way to tax the air you breathe they will. Your income, based on the Minimum Wage, if you're lucky. My Tibetan friends and other friends everywhere, don't be fooled into believing you are free in the West, slavery just come by another name. 18 Sep 06

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)

The idea that every ethnic group should have their own nation just because they want it is absurd. If the Chinese population in Vancouver suddenly flips out and wanted to separate from Canada and form a mini-Chinese state on the North American continent, should they have the right to do so? Talks of "self-determination" must be scrutinized from every angle. I can tell you that for every Free Tibet supporter out there, I can find you at least 10 Chinese who oppose it.--Lssah 88 18:12, 14 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

Come on Terminator, what have demonstrations against the Iraq War and the Israeli War in Canada and USA done? In this world the strong guy rules. When China was the weak guy, she was trodden on as the Sick Man of Asia. Do you think with the memory and wounds so fresh, China will let herself be trodden all over again? North America is relatively free if you have the money, otherwise you are nothing and worse than a dog; and Tibet now is much freer than the Tibet under the old theocracy. 19 sep 06.

Hey Terminator50, you are nothing but a selfish and unprincipled person without much integrity or credibility. So your family has suffered under the communist rule and you hate them for it? Your family was not an isolated case; millions of others suffered. You are confusing communism with China. Ask yourself whether you hate China or communism. Communism is not a Chinese culture, but a political philosophy invented in Europe. So had your family done well out of communism you would be singing its praises. Look at it this way, communism didn't work for your family, but the system there allowed you to leave for Canada to make another life for yourselves. If in Canada or the US, you went bankrupt or were wrongfully jailed or convicted, as so many are in the US or Canada in miscarriage of justice cases, would you be calling for the dismantlement of the governments and societies there? 26 Sep 06.

Terminator50, do you also hate the people who supplied the whole of China with opium so that the whole nation collapsed and drained of its wealth accumulated over several thousand years? And when the Chinese fought back they were trashed. Who do you hate more, the Chinese or the people who reduced the Chinese to beggars? Why do you think the communists were able to take power in China? Learn your history first before making criticisms, otherwise you not only come across as not having integrity or credibility, you also come across as ignorant and stupid. 27 Sep 06.

Terminator50 why don't you examine the suffering of the Chinese people before the communists arrived? There may have been a few wealthy Chinese families in Shanghai whose wealth was ultimately derived from collaborating with the occupying foreign powers. Look at the poverty and suffering in the rest of the country in those days. Terminator50, please don't be so selfish and look at the Big Picture. 26 Sep 06.

194.60.106.5 13:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Terminator50. I am sorry your family suffered. What about Chinese families who suffered under the hands of the Japanese. The Japanese used chemical and biological weapons on Chinese civilians and used Chinese people as guinea-pigs in horrific experiments. Why don't you go and tell the world that Japan should be split up by its individual islands into separate countries, so that their people would be less likely to reach the critical mass needed to wage war upon another people. 5 Oct 06.

All historical evidence only shows is that Tibet has been independent to varying degrees throughout its history. It certainly has not been entirely independent during Qing dynasty to make it a sovereign nation, and it certainly is not now. Although I sympathize with your family (which Chinese family has not been affected by Mao?), your idea of supporting sedition and raising ethnic tensions within China as revenge is totally unacceptable and uncalled for. --Lssah 88 22:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is very well documented that it is the Tibetans who stink. The BO is due to a relunctance or lack of opportunity to wash. May be you want this aspect of Tibetan culture and custom retained when they visit your house? 13 Sep 06

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.

WP:NOT a soapbox, please. --Sumple (Talk) 11:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Seriously nobody or government is supporting "Free Tibet".

If the cause really gains wide support, then Dharamsala should have gained diplomatic recognition like PLO had when the latter was still in exile. If the cause really gains wide support, US would never recognize Chinese sovereignty over Tibet like it never recognized Soviet sovereignty over the Baltic Republics. But the reality is Washington recognized Chinese sovereignty even before PRC was established. On the other hand, GE and Bombardier help built the Qinghai-Tibet railway despite the project was labelled as "controversial" by the "Free Tibet" supporters. And of course, the first train was jampacked with western tourists. If anyone is really serious to support "Free Tibet", put their words into action please.206.195.188.250 20:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

The hypothesis that "every place ought to be free" is basically flawed. Why? Very simple. (1) There are just about 200+ countries in the world but there are about 2,000+ ethnic groups in the world. If every ethnic group needs to be "free", most likely most countries' political boundaries have to be re-drawn and re-drawn again and again. (2) In the case of Tibet, politically it has never been "free" per western standard no matter before or after 1950. But now it is the same group of people, who were dominant in power before 1950 and had committed serious human right violation during that period, asks for a "Free Tibet". Isn't that ironic? (3) Ideally every place ought to be free. And actually that principle should be applied to the largest ethnic group without a nation first. Kurds, who have a population of 25 million, deserve more to have their own country than any other ethnic group else. But they were given false promise by the West again and again since the Versailles Conference. Almost 100 years later, they are still without a country. Why doesn't the West let the Kurds in Iraq, Iran, Turkey, come together to have their own country first? If Kurds can get independence, I have no qualm against Tibetan independence.63.166.120.27 20:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

You certainly have a patronizing attitude. Under the Dalai Lama, Tibetans were free to worship the Buddha and their lamas. Who are you to say that that is not the most important freedom?

Why are the Tibetans worshipping Bhudda? Bhudda told his disciples not to worship him after he died. 6 Oct 06

What human rights violations? The mutilation of criminals? That happened in almost every pre-industrial society. A "serf" is someone who pays taxes and rent in kind or labor, as opposed to money. Yet Chinese propagandists equate this with slavery.

If you want to reduce the count of free ethnic groups, why not start with Chinese?

Kurds????? Next it'll be Eskimos. So what has China done for the Kurds? More than for Tibetans, probably.Kauffner 05:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. Why should the Inuit people be ruled by Russians, Americans, Canadians and Danes? 10 Oct 06

Kauffner: Are you thick or are you just a lager lout out there to start fights for no reasons? You ask what the Chinese have done for the Tibetans; one simple answer is giving them their lives. Most Tibetans alive in Tibet today have the Chinese to thank, for simply being alive. Under the lamas they would have died long ago because their life expectancy was so low. Try and get some answers to your questions before you ask them instead of basing your arguments on untrue and pointless propaganda. Of course propaganda in the West is not known as propaganda but as marketing and advertising. 6 Oct 06.

Why dig up something I wrote three weeks previously, respond in such an impertinent tone, and answer a question I didn't ask? It's like your stalking me.

If you didn't ask the question, why was it signed your name?

As far as the substance of the point your making goes, it's wonderful Tibetans have a longer life expectency now. But almost every country in the world has longer life expectancy today than it did 60 year ago. Just think how much longer American Indian life expectency is today than it was centuries ago. If all of this makes Tibetans feel grateful to China, hey, I am always happy to see Tibetans and Chinese getting along. The next time you meet a Tibetan, go right ahead and explain to him exactly how grateful he should feel.Kauffner

American Indian life expectancy? What was this number before pre-European colonisation? This number dropped because European brought diseases and wars, and the wiping out of native populations by Europeans, rather like the wiping out of the bisons. The Native populations now remaining in North America are not genetically the same stock as of pre-European colonisation times, but in many cases the 'Natives' are essentially of European stock genetically, and no true statistical comparison of life-expectancy could be made, as essentially the control sample had now been wiped out. The overall world life-expectany of 60 years ago was low because many young people of the world had just died in a world war, thus distorting the statistics. Tibet could be classified as a Third World region and I don't see life-expectancy having improved very much in other Third World regions over the past 60 years, just take a look at Sub-Saharan Africa. Yes, most Chinese get along with most Tibetans in the same way most Muslims get along with most Americans, with the exception of a handful of trouble-makers. The Tibetans don't need reminding of how hard the days were in the times of lama ruler. 11 Oct 06

Not saying that the poster you are responding to isn't using some inappropriate analogies, but I would think the majority of Tibetans do not want to go back to a primitive feudal society, where serfs trying to break their "contract" with their llama lords could have their eyes gouged out, among other barbaric punishments. Let's face it, if the Chinese was to leave Tibet, ideally they would take EVERY dime of investment back with them. Those Tibetan kids you see on the streets with their cellphones and ipods, well, they would be tilling the fields under the whips of llama Bob. I don't know about you, but between living in a shackle of chains and living under a modernized authoritarian regime, I choose the latter.--Lssah 88 17:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

What kind of religious freedom did the Tibetans enjoy under Dalai Lama? Look at the facts please.

In mid-19th century, the Foreign Missions of Paris, a major missionary organization in China, ordered its priests to move from Xinjiang, China's far northwestern region, south onto the forbidding Tibetan plateau. They were not welcomed. Within a few years, Tibetan brigands, backed by Buddhist lamas, had killed 10 priests and destroyed all the Catholic missions but one, in Yanjing, a town between Tibet and Yunnan.

As you said, the Tibetans had the freedom to believe in Lamaism but nothing else. Was that freedom of religion?

Were the Tibetan lamas only brutal to the serf?

After the failed coup of Regent Reting in 1947, Reting was sentenced to have his eyeballs peeled off. Was Reting a criminal? He was just an unfortunate political adversary. But that was how a lama treated another fellow lama.

China could not help the far away Kurds. But when the closer by East Timorese gained independence from Portugal in 1974, China was the first country to recognize an independent East Timor. But what did the West do after Indonesia invaded East Timor and subsequently annihilated one quarter of its population? Did Washington and Canberra dare recognize an independent East Timor?64.203.20.215 07:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Reting sent a package bomb to the regent, so yeah, he was a criminal. Reting was poisoned. You're confused with Lungshar.

It was Australian troops that ended Indonesian rule in East Timor. As I understand it, the Indonesians are still really sore about it. Bin Laden complains about this too. Maybe you can explain to them that they are mad at the wrong people.Kauffner 11:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You called Regent Reting Rinpoche, the one who located the 14th Dalai Lama and ruled Tibet for 14 years, as a criminal? So do you mean Tibet had been ruled by a criminal all along? And do you mean the 14th Dalai Lama is illegitimate since he was identified by a criminal?

Reting was only a "criminal" because he lost in the political struggle. And of course even being a rinpoche, Reting could not escape his doomed fate.

Australian troops didn't intervene in East Timor until 1998. But Canberra turned a blind eye to what Sukarto did in East Timor -- just next door neighbor of Australia -- for all those years. Why didn't Canberra intervene when Indonesia committed genocide in East Timor between 1975~1998?

And Australia didn't have a respectable human right record either. By 1870s, the White immigrants practically annihilated the entire aboriginal population on the island of Tasmania. And until 1960s, they still engaged in the notorious practice of kidnapping the aboriginal kids and put them in White foster families so that they could become "Australians".166.122.98.179 18:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

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)

More on Tibet passport

In the archive 2 talk, there is the topic related to the passport issued to the members in the Tibet Trade Mission that had visited many countries in 1948. A fellow poster argued that since countries like Britain and Italy stamped visas on those passports, such action means implicit recognition of Tibet as an independent country before 1950. But please look at the facts:

(1) Chinese government has never exercised any kind of extra-territorial jurisdiction. In 1948, it could not control what those British and Italian immigration officials did. Even if those Tibetan officials held Disneyland Passports and were admitted, Chinese government could do nothing about it.

(2) Before the Tibetan Trade Mission visited US and Europe, where did they set foot first? Hong Kong and Shanghai. What kind of travel documents did they hold to enter Shanghai in January 1948? Chinese passports. Because the Nanking government insisted that they must hold Chinese passports to enter Shanghai, these Tibetan officials applied for Chinese passports at the Chinese Consulate in Calcutta and used them to enter Shanghai.

There is great ambiguity between the English words 'state', 'country', 'nation' and 'nationality'. 'England', 'Scotland', 'Wales' and 'Northern Ireland' are all separate and different countries with their own national identities, but they all come under the one state 'United Kingdom'. It may be that these terms do not translate well or indeed do not exist in other languages.

(3) So why did these Tibetan officials hold two passports? One Chinese and one Tibetan. The answer is that they (including Dalai Lama) were purely opportunistic. And why did countries like Britain and Italy issue visas to these Tibetan officials but never recognized an independent Tibet? The answer is that they were hypocritical. 63.166.120.27 02:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Tubo

126 recently edited out a section dealing with the etymology of the English word "Tibet" which linked it to the Chinese 吐蕃, with the explanation, "there is a whole issue of Sino-Platonic papers disproving the wiefd idea that tufan was pronounced Tubo, the Sanskrit name should not be in the English section". For one thing, if you're going to cite an issue of a journal, please give the citation; don't just say "there is an issue". Second, the fact that this word was not pronounced "Tubo" doesn't necessarily impeach the whole theory, so I don't know why you removed the whole passage. Third, I agree that the pronunciation "tubo" in "ancient times" is implausible, but this site indicates that, in medieval Chinese, it was pronounced, roughly, t'o-bwǝn, which might be worth noting.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:24, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

The Tibet/ 吐蕃 /Tubo theory is orthodox among PRC scholars. (For an example, see this link.) It's also the traditional and the most commonly encountered theory, so IMO it deserves a mention. If it's been outdated by recent scholarship, that can be stated.Kauffner 19:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the article title for the Töbän reference: It's a book review. No new scholarship there. It probably just repeats an old theory.Kauffner 21:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Some detailed comments and reasoning:

The English word Tibet, like the word: for Tibet in most European languages, is derived from the Arabic word Tubbat. There are several theories as to the origin of this word. According to one, it is derived via Persian from the Turkic word Töbän (pl. Töbäd), meaning "the heights".[1] According to another theory, Tubbat is derived from Chinese 吐蕃 (Pinyin tǔfān, but in Medieval times pronounced tǔbō[3] or t'o-bwǝn[4]).[2][3] This word refers to the Tibetan Empire of the 7th–11th centuries.

Proponents of the "Tubo" theory must explain the following. a. where did the -n come from in modern chinese, b. where did the -t come from in English, Arabic. The reconstruction of Starostin is fine, and corrects the internal Chinese historical phonological problem of a. I do not beleive Starostin though the origin of this word was Chinese.

In Chinese Tubo/T'o-bwan means 'Tibet' so in fact this does not explain anything. Why did the Chinese use this name for Tibet. The Turkic etymology is superior because 1. these forms have a meaning in Turkic, so it is probably not a loan word, whereas in Chinese, English, Arabic etc. it is a proper name, and therefore probably a loan word. 2. the plural suffix (indigenous turkc morphology) explains both the the Chinese -n and the English -t. 3. Geographically it makes more sense that central Asia gave this word to both China and Arabia, then, that it went from China to England. (admittedly 3 is the weakest argument, and probably proponents of tibet < Tubo theory also think the Turkic and Arabic forms come from Chinese) It is true that Tubo is orthodox among Chinese scholars, but I do not think Wikipedia should necessarily kowtow to all orthodoxies of Chinese communism. This theory is not supported outside of China among Tibetologists. A last note-- it is inacurate to say that "this word refers to the Tibetan empire in the 7th-11th century" and better to say "this word refers to Tibet, and was used in China in the 7th-11th century."

This discussion above is a bit confused, it's not clear who said what. Please sign your contributions so the rest of us can follow you. Anyway, I know some Arabic and I have not seen any reference to "Tubbat" in my Arabic dictionaries. Hans Wehr gives at-Tibt as the Arabic word for Tibet.

On the other hand, in Manchu, one of the names used for Tibet is Tubet (See Jerry Norman's Manchu dictionarty for instance). It is actually quite likely that Jesuits who knew Manchu, such as Jean Joseph Marie Amiot brought the word to Europe. According to the OED, the earliest use of Tibet in English dates to 1827.--Niohe 01:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Issues

A statement from earlier in the discussion read:

" The Chinese and Tibetans are not of a different race. They are both Mongoloids."

How can you justify something like that and think it is relevant? Some people believe humans evolved from monkeys so why aren't we all one big civilization? Why are there countries and different races? Because people change and develop over time (not in a sense of monkey to human), but in the sense of what they believe in, what they create. So to say that the Chinese and the Tibetans are the same is the opinion of someone who isn't truly either. To look in from the outside and say "Their hair is all black, their eyes slanted so therefore they must be the same." Come on, when was an explanation like that ever accepted as legitimate and correct? You ask the Tibetans in exile what they think of Chinese occupation of Tibet. As explained earlier in the conversation, they are against it. But then we say "That is just opinion of 0.06% of the population, so why should it count"? For those who are older, they fled their own country in fear of losing their lives, or being imprisoned and tortured for their beliefs. Many more fled recently in search of better education. So why doesn't their opinion count? Each of these people have a story to tell, and very few of these are positive, otherwise why would they have left? And to ask those living within the TAR region what they think - the chance is that they are the next generation to those who lived in the regions of U-Tsang, Amdo (yes Amdo) and Kham, who had their lands stolen from them, monasteries destroyed, their religious leaders denounced and publically humiliated and tortured, told that their beliefs were 'hollow and pointless' by the 'Peoples Liberation Army'. One generation of going to Chinese schools, being brainwashed by Mao's political regime (information on this can be found in the book 'Mao's Last Dancer', the autobiography of Li Cunxin, who grew up in China from 1960 onwards and went to school there).

This all sounds very much like blatant genocide and brainwashing by the Chinese, not to mention a direct breach of the International Declaration of Human Rights. Wouldn't you agree? How can a force that does such things call themselves a 'Liberation Army'? They came in with the announcement that Tibet had always been part of China (not true, as has also been discussed) and that they were simply here to help and to welcome them back to the motherland. Did they ask the Tibetans whether they wanted to become part of China? Judging by the course of events I would say 'no'. People found with a picture of the Dalai Lama are arrested and imprisoned. Does that sound fair, just and helpful governing by the Chinese?

Lets go back to 1949. Tibet had its own government. It comprised of three large regions; Amdo to the north east, Kham to the east U-Tsang the large western half. The Dalai Lama was the head of the government and also the spiritual leader for those of the Buddhist religion. Being very religious, a large percentage of the people followed the teachings of Buddha and revered the Dalai Lama (Great Spiritual Leader). Those who know anything about Buddhism will know that it is a religion that does not inspire violence. Rather forgiveness, love, understanding and a belief that nothing on earth is 'permanent'. I would say more but I think that is enough to get my point across.

So how would a culture with such beliefs be accused of brainwashing theocracy? Before the Chinese invaded, there were no civil wars, people didn't hate each other, people weren't starving and unclean just because they didn't go for a medical checkup every so often or brush their teeth twice a day for three minutes! That is quite simply the judgment of a westerner who doesn't know anything else. Don't take this personally please, I just want make a valid point.

The Tibetans also spoke a completely different language, had a different culture and way of life.

It would not be possible for the Chinese to invade Tibet today in the same way that they did nearly half a century ago. Here is an example. Look at the situation in East Timor when the Portuguese withdrew in 1975. The Indonesian government under president Suharto completely took over. What did the rest of the world and it’s governments do? Precisely nothing! Reason? They'll give you plenty of reasons, but the real ones are that many countries (including Australia) had profitable political ties with Indonesia. Australia made vast amounts of money from the oil fields of the Timor Sea when Indonesia got possession of East Timor. So were Australia against the Indonesian invasion? No.

Look at the current situation in East Timor however. They have earned their independence, but there is still this issue with its maritime boundaries. Australia likes the oil it gets from there and doesn't want to relinquish that territory to the East Timorese. In doing so, they are in direct breach of international law on maritime boundaries - as a survey by the UN shows. (This small sidetracking is done for a purpose). Australia draws in over 1 billion dollars each year from the oil reserves in East Timor. East Timor's annual budget for the entire country is around 100 million dollars. With the extra money that is rightfully theirs, the East Timorese would be able to do a much better job of public health, education and employment. In doing so, they wouldn't need the help of other countries. Australia is shown as magnanimous in its help to East Timor in the recent events of violence, but really, they have been the greatest robbers of what is not theirs in a country that desperately needs everything it can get. Who would have thought? You don't read this stuff in 'The Australian’ newspaper.

Tibet and East Timor have something in common about how they have been treated. Why hasn't Tibet earned its independence too? Perhaps for the same reason, lets all think now....

Does the western world have profitable ties with China? YES. Where does most of our cheap clothing, appliances and homewares come from? Where are vast future business prospects coming from? China. So why would governments get on the wrong side of China by standing up for human rights and international law when their is money to be made?

Why doesn’t the world recognise the Tibetan government in Exile? The Dalai Lama? Why has the Panchen Lama been kidnapped by the Chinese without immediate response from the worlds governments and the people who are in a position to change it? Because they would get off side with China, no more cheap anything. People couldn't buy 2 cars, toasters for $15.00, televisions from $50.00 and all manner of other home luxuries for such cheap prices. Why would you want to change? This is the fault of governments worldwide.

Ok, so here is a radical view and I know that Wiki wants us to remain neutral. If we are to be so neutral, then what do we stand for? If we are so well ‘rounded’, we aren't ‘pointed’ in any direction! No benevolent change in the world has ever been brought about by being ‘neutral’.

A particularly insightful reference, is the book 'Sorrow Mountain: The remarkable journey of a Tibetan Warrior Nun' by Ani Pachen and Adelaide Donnelley. This book isn’t fiction. It is the biography of Ani Pachen herself who was alive when all of these atrocities were done to the Tibetans. She experienced it all and fought it! This is a relevant opinion of a Tibetan who lived in Tibet and was subject to 'the liberation and help' of the Chinese.

Another great reference is Amnesty International. Have a look!

Read about those Tibetans who speak out against the Chinese here.

Please verify my examples about East Timor here.

My personal opinion on the subject is that those Tibetans living in Tibet would be afraid to speak out against the Chinese after seeing what happens to those who do? Wouldn't any of us be? Sometimes you need to look a little deeper than what is on the surface and beyond what the popular media presents to discover the truth.

I would be happy to hear what people have to say on this discussion thread, having looked a little more deeply into the real situation of Tibet (minus the Chinese propaganda and spin). (That is of course considering that it won’t be deleted by the moderators).

I speak with an independent voice, and am not involved with any religion, government body or group that have an established point of view on this subject.

Withywindle 03:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

So anything positive coming out from the CCP about Tibet must be propaganda to you? Your idea of what the world should be does not exist. It's like saying coummunism works when it goes fly in the face of human nature for greed. Every major nation in the world today is founded based on the displacement/loss of others and fueled by self-interest. Is it moral? Maybe not, but that's just the way it is. What I find flustering is how people sitting comfortably in their ethnically cleansed countries thinks they have the right to wag their fingers at how others should/should not conduct their internal affairs.--Lssah 88 19:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, man, you just said might makes right. So, I guess that's what gives other people the right to wag their fingers at China. That's just the way it is.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't put words in my mouth, I am only pointing at the hypocrisy of those critical of the PRC whose "democratic" countries they lived in are formed based on the displacement of others. You are lucky your ancestors did the dirty work for you over a century ago to assimilate the natives they brutally subdued to create the country you take for granted today. Yet, here you are telling the Chinese people they don't have the right to do what they perceived to be neccessary to the betterment of their nation, and what the Hans had done/is doing to the Tibetans is NO WHERE as bad as what the white man had done to the aboriginals they conquered. What China does to Tibet and whatever consequences results from it are China's business, and no one elses.--Lssah 88 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You admit that the situation in Tibet is not moral. You said, "Is it moral? Maybe not, but that's just the way it is." Fine. But, then, what business do you have talking to anybody about rights? You should just shut your mouth about that stuff. You say "What China does to Tibet and whatever consequences results from it are China's business, and no one elses", but, if somebody else wants to make it their business, what are you going to do about it?

that's just the way it is.
— lssah 88

Peoples rights, human rights, that EVERYONES business. And it is not alright for China to do ANYTHING for the betterment of their country. Just because what the Han Chinese had done/are doing is supposedly no where as bad as what the white men had done to the aborigianals, doesn't justify their actions at all. China has some absolute human rights attrocities that it has and still is committing. That is the worlds business. Why do you think that organizations like Amnesty Internation exist? Because they perceive it as their responsibility to make known and combat these violations of peoples rights. The Universal Declaration of Human rights is recognised under international law and it is not up to the Chinese or any government what they do concerning it. Your statement is as wrong as it is untrue and one sided. No one will accept such a statement these days.Withywindle 06:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But, you're in luck, so far: no one with the power to stand up to the CCP has done much to help Tibet yet. You can cross your fingers that it stays that way. Meanwhile, you can please spare me your whining about what China needs to do for the betterment of its nation. China could give up every inch of land that the Dalai Lama is asking for (which is, I will agree, a very exaggerated request) and it would still be a very large, powerful country, and still with the largest population in the world. The idea that China needs Tibet is nonsense. There are a whole lot of countries in the world that I would feel sorry for sooner than China.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Withywindle and Nat Krause: So you would prefer to see China weak and divided like it had been before 1949? Let me tell you something, the only reason why the CCP was even created in the first place is because of foreigners like you meddling in our affairs and trying to partition our country. But then again, Chinese sacred views of unity and territorial integrity is something that I will never expect you to understand. It is a farce to think China had lost nothing if it lost Tibet. You think the Chinese are just are going to kowtow and throw away Tibet just because people like you tell them to? Do you even know how much money the Chinese already poured into Tibet? "And it is not alright for China to do ANYTHING for the betterment of their country." My people have suffered foreign invasion, humiliation, turmoil, starvation to get to where they are today within the span of a generation, and you DARE HAVE THE BALLS TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT DO! You can keep praying for the PRC to destabilize so your wet dreams for a free Tibet is realized, but I will guarantee you if that ever happens, the world have much bigger problems to deal with than just Tibet. --Lssah 88 15:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tibet is not your country, and Tibetans are not your people. Keep your problems inside your own house, please.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Nat Krause, Tibet and China are not your country either, so you should keep your problems inside your own house. 27 Sep 06.

Nat Krause: So it is OK to have in the US Constitution 'One nation, indivisible' and not OK for China's constitution? So if the Black Americans wanted a separate country, a simple response is that it would be unconstitutional; but obviously you think when in China it should be constitutional. Double standards? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.60.106.5 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 06 (UTC).

Incidentally, "One nation, indivisible" certainly does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. That's a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which was written by a socialist more than a hundred years after the constitution.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 14:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, nothing you say concerning this really makes any sense, I certainly don't agree with you. If China has to continue to commit these violations of human rights in order to maintain it's current status then perhaps it is better if it is weak. But giving the Tibetans Tibet wouldn't make them weak. The western world loves China for its cheap clothing etc. they won't stop supporting it in that aspect. In fact, everyone wants to get onside with China (governments), which makes the plight of Tibet even more desperate. I wish that some influencial government would have the guts to stand up to China, then you could get the UN on board etc. That would be good.

You still don't get it do you? What human rights violations? What comparisons are you making? Are you comparing these claims with the claims of how the US treats its Black people? Why are so many Black people wrongfully imprisoned in the USA? Why do so many Black people live in ghettoes and poor housing in the USA? Why are so many Black people illiterate in the USA? The Chinese Government treat the Tibetans better than they treat the Han Chinese, and that is more than could be said of the White US administration's treatment of its Black citizens. Claims of human rights violation against the Tibetan people (as a population) by the Chinese Government is simply untrue and is defamatory propaganda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.60.106.5 (talk) 23:59, 6 October 06 (UTC).

Get it? Get it? You mean I still don't get YOUR point of view. Well as far as a do 'get it', I don't agree with it.

Why do people keep referring to the USA? Black Americans are not the topic of this conversation. Maybe if you were making a point (one that has already been made so congradulations on being really witty!).

What humans rights violations? Bizarre question. Just log onto Amnesty International and have a look at attrocities concerning Tibet and China that have been discovered and are being fought. Trying to deny China's malevolence takes some powerful ignorance!

Someone (on behalf of Tibetans) in discussion above says it was OK for a Tibetan to mutilate other Tibetans (serfs). There is no report of the Chinese mutilating Tibetans. So who is violating whose human rights?

Amnesty International doesn't call for Tibet to secede from China. 8 Oct 06

Just because the Chinese (supposedly, that's what they want us to here) treat the Tibetans properly, doesn't make it their country.

81.131.74.115 22:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC) What makes a country a country then? 7 Oct 06

Well, not giving the Tibetans their right to self-determination is a violation against the Tibetan people.

The lamas never gave the Tibetans the right to self-determination. 8 Oct 06

Putting restrictions on their religious freedom is a Human Rights violation.

The lamas never allowed the Tibetans to choose their own religion.

Forcefull control over pro-Tibetan demonstrations is a Human Rights violation.

Where?

Not adhearing to all aspects of the International Declaration of Human Rights is a Human Rights violation. (this is where many countries fall short)

Which country does?

Read the International Declaration of Human Rights, and see how many violations the Chinese commit/committed against the Tibetans for yourself, then come back and spout out your un-insightful conclusions! If you can't see where they've gone wrong, then you are turning a blind eye (and purposefully), but worse, are trying to convince others of your point of view, specially without any references. You seem to act the same way the Chinese Government do.....an employment prospect perhaps? Or, maybe already!!! Why am I surprised? If you read the biographies/auto-biographies of people who have lived/are living in Tibet and China over the last say, 70 years up until now. Few seem to agree with what you have to say/Chinese government have to say. But when these attrocities happen/happened, the Chinese Government was always saying the opposite.

The International Declaration of Human Rights doesn't call for separate countries for any particular society. 8 Oct 06

But it refer to all humans and they constitute all countries and societies. Those in places of responsibity where it concerns others have to be aware of it on behalf of others. This refers too all governments and societies.

So you agree that human rights issues and independence are 2 separate issues? Should we create a separate country or two for gay people then?

(answer to question 1) Yes, though if these humans diplay a desire for independence than that is their right to.

Where does this right come from? If I want to draw a circle around my house and declared the land an (small) independent country, then that is my right then?

(2) Show some maturity, you know that is shoving my explanation into the ridiculous and then canning me on your conclusion.

Look who's talking. You are a fantasist.

The overall topic of this conversation is the evaluation of PRC 'rule' of Tibet so don't come back saying, "Yeah, but the way the Chinese treat the Tibetans is not nearly as bad as the way the US government has treated/is treating its black citizens." It doesn't make the Chinese government's land grab of Tibet any more legitimate. I don't agree with with most things the US government do because quite frankly they are as bad if not worse than the Chinese government and should never be used as an example of 'The Champion of Freedom'! Withywindle 01:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, so why not start by having a go at the USA instead of China.

Because - like I said earlier - the topic of the conversation/argument is about evaluation of PRC rule in Tibet. I'd love to have a dig at the American Government. And I agree that their treatment of Black Americans is/has been apalling. It still doesn't justify Chinas attrocities.

What atrocities are you talking about? Someone above, for the Tibetans, has already said that it is OK for Tibetans to mutilate other Tibetans. Any way, why do the Tibetans need you to evaluate PRC rule in Tibet?

How many countries in this world satisfies every aspect of these Declarations in every way? Are the people above saying that the Tibetans have more rights than Black people? Why aren't the rights of the Black people just as important as the Tibetan people's, there are certainly more Black people than Tibetans? Everyone on this earth has to eat, and should have a right to eat, but who is suppose to feed them? When the Tibetans starved, did the Tibetan clergy give them this right by feeding them? Who is violating whose rights?

I never said that the rights of the black people were not as important as those of the Tibetans but, I was/am speaking out for the Tibetans as this page's topic concerns them more than it does the black Americans!

What makes you think what these Tibetans or so called pro-Tibetans say is entirely true?

81.131.74.115 21:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC) Human rights violations? Tell us how one section of Tibetan society violate the human rights of another section of Tibetan society. The Tibetan clergy is violating human rights of the Tibetan people by limiting their choice of religion to one- namely the religion of the lamas. Amnesty Internation make reports, but you should analyse all the reports of every country around the world. Just look at the violation of the human rights of the Black people in the USA. Can you believe everything in the reports of Amnesty International? Did Amnesty Internation make a report on the grotesque treatment of the Tibetan people by the Tibetan clergy in the past? If not, why not? Could the Tibetan clergy be trusted not to commit such atrocities again? If you believe these AI reports, then every Tibetans should be dead, but the fact is the Tibetans are thriving with longer life-expectancy now than it ever was under the cruel and sadistic rule of the lamas.

Analyse all the reports from all countries of the world by Amnesty International? That would take a lifetime. I read about the ones that interest me, or that are relevant to whatever I am researching.

Oh no it would not. Your 'research' is nothing but selected secondary reading.

Perhaps the reason Amnesty International doesn't report on the bad things in Tibet is because Amnesty International hadn't even been created in 1949 when Tibet was last it's own country. Did you think of that?

Yes, but I don't agree with you on the 'country' bit. Tibet was and is a geographic region, and a 'country' in the sense that Wales is a country within the United Kingdom.

Naturally no one from the PRC Government would agree 'country' desciption of Tibet as it goes against the truth they have tried to eliminate.

I am not from the PRC Government. Scotland and Wales are countries within the United Kingdom, whose dominant country is England. Even in English a 'country' has more than one meaning. A 'country' is not necessarily 'independent', but may, as in the case of Scotland and Wales be subordinate to another 'state'. It is you who is trying to eliminate the truth.

Oh, sure Tibet had issues, I never said they didn't. You're jumping to conclusions about what I think. Lets leave what I think up to me shall we?

I think Tibet had big issues with it's somewhat corrupt government prior to Chinese invasion.

I think that Buddhism discriminates generally against women in what they can and cannot do.

No, Bhuddism does not discriminate against women generally. Tibetans don't practise Bhuddism, they practise Animism with a bit of Bhuddism thrown in.

That would only be because Tibetans represent a minority in their own COUNTRY and so if the Chinese present do/vote on something, it will come up as the majority to surveys done by Chinese who think that Chinese in Tibet are Tibetan's.

So, who can call themself an American, and who can call themself an Australian?

These issues of Tibet's would come to the fore in Tibet was able to have it's own country back. Then the issues could be sorted out. For now, the Tibetans and their culture are just trying to remain in existence.

And I was born yesterday.

Example:

Well if you were born yesterday I'll have to explain how the East Timorese situation panned out after their Independence in 2002 (because you weren't born then, according to you). For 25 years they were under the pump of Indonesia, all sections of society banded together to fight for their independence. When they won it, and the Indonesians withdrew (bitterly), these sections then fell upon themselves as they showed their differences. It is this sort of senario that I was talking about before.

Oh you don't seem to understand English idioms. You ask people not to talk about Black Americans here, so why are you talking about East Timorese?

I think that the serfs/land owners of Tibet were unfair to the Tibetan people who were under them.

Does the Tibetan clergy expect human rights to come from the begging bowl? Their religion instruct the people to expect nothing but suffering and wait for the next rebirth. What sort of human right is this? A beggar in the New York subway also has human rights, so why's he a beggar in the New York subway, and not sitting in a comfortable house with food and water? 7 Oct 06

I don't necessarily agree with Buddhism at all. But I do agree with Tibets claims to land and indepedence from China. It just so happens that most of Tibet is Buddhism.

And for the last time (this is becoming ridiculous), yes the New York beggar has the right to have food/water and a house, yes this is an attrocity by the American Government, yes black American people matter, but I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BLACK AMERICANS. I AM TALKING ABOUT THE PRC RULE IN TIBET AS THAT IS THE TOPIC OF THIS CONVERSATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As for your views on Tibet's dependence on the PRC:

Dependency upon China by Tibetans would only be a result of Chinese occupation of Tibetan land. Raping the landscape, fragile furtile top soils that need carefull management were subject to the Chinese grasp of Agriculture. The native winter crop of staple grain in Tibet is Barley, which they farmed successfully for centuries. But then in come the Chinese with all their 'great' ideas of liberation, modernization etc etc. They force the Tibetans to grow wheat instead using Chinese farming methods because the Chinese liked wheat. The result, two bumper crops (because of nutrients in soil by the careful management of Tibetan farmers) and then famine. The soil had been destroyed, no more productivity. They further cut down millions of trees, creating deserts out of what was once diverce eco-systems.

They carve up the landscape in their greed in wanting to get at the rich deposits of uranium throughout areas of Tibet. Much of the radioactive waste leaches into the enviroment contaminating it.

That would not make sense. If there are rich uranium deposit there, the radioactivity is already there (known as the background). Extracting (and thus removing) the uranium for use would actually reduce the radioactivity.

If the Chinese left the Tibetans alone, they wouldn't have had all of the starvation they were subject too under the Chinese. And you say that the Tibetan are dependant on China? Exit Chinese Government, and Tibet would have the opportunity to sort out it's problems you are already blaming it for. The fact that the Tibetans represent and minority in their own country means the swamping and almost complete desecration of an entire culture.

So, Tibetans were well fed and never starved under the lamas? Can't fool me.

They didn't NEVER STARVE, but they were much better fed than most of the Chinese population.

Sure.

As agent Smith correctly pointed out in his analogy of humans (only now I refer it to the Chinese government and their policies):

When they over-populate their own region and kill it off, then the only way for them to survive is to spread to another area. There is one other organism on this planet that shares the same characteristics. Do you know what it is? It is a virus. The Chinese Government are a disease, their policies are poison.

Cold War rhetoric and typical of the 'Yellow Peril' mentality.

Actually I was only quoting a film.

A superb piece of research; I don't think.

Thus the swamping of Tibet by Chinese, kills off the original vestiges of human striving.

People who bring this out into the light are China's 'enemies' as such. Look at the Dalai Lama, in his autobiography he explains the situation of Tibet at different times. Seems to be the exact opposite of what PRC says. And some of you think that what the Tibetan Government in Exile says is propaganda, the only ones who contradict you. The result, you pass them off as propaganda generating machines. Pretty much, you just voice the dis-information of the PRC. Yet another hurdle to over-come in Tibetans struggle for independence. Withywindle 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Are we to believe the dalai lama? If we did then we shall have to believe in reincarnation, and ask dalai himself why he committed all these atrocities against the Tibetan people in his previous lifes. 9 Oct 06.

You have now presented yourself in your true light. You suffer from delusion and madness, and a writer of fiction.

How can you updold this rubbish and live with yourself? (as concerns China and Tibet)

Look who's talking.

Thousands of Tibetans have been imprisoned for their beliefs in freedom and independence for Tibet, faith in the Dalai Lama as leader of the Government for Tibet if not as a spiritual leader. When imprisoned they were tortured by the Chinese for showing faith in the Dalai Lama and their beliefs. They were portrayed as 'revolutionists', 'splittists' and 'dangerous criminals'. After subjecting them to horrific torture, they tried to tell them that the Chinese were only there to HELP and that everything the Dalai Lama (and other individuals) was lies and blaphemy.

I do not uphold that people should be imprisoned or detained for their belief. As a human value, people should be free to hold beliefs whether those beliefs are true or false, as long as they do not cause harm to others, or to use undue force or pressure or deception in 'persuading' others to follow their belief. The reason for this is that human intellectual development, as a whole human society and not individual intellectual development, could only progress when beliefs are brought to the open and discussed, with nothing hidden, and acted upon. If as you say the Chinese Government imprisoned people simply for their belief then this is wrong. But if what you say were true, then the Chinese would have imprisoned every single Tibetan without exception. As this is not the case, then your original thesis cannot be true. People are imprisoned because they have broken the criminal code or law of the country concerned. People are perfectly free, and rightly so, to believe in Islam. But then to fly a plane into the World Trade Center claiming that this is what their belief told them to do is wrong; these people will be imprisoned, not for their belief of Islam, but for their murderous and criminal actions. What 9-11 has done is that a whole section of society (Muslims) has been presented as criminals, when they are perfectly innocent, in very much the same way as you present the Chinese here. Just take a look at the detainees in Guantanamo, are they all criminals? Why are they detained, tortured and humiliated without trial? Look at Britain where an 18 year old (Muslim) Bengali woman (I would call her a girl) was charged and detained on anti-terrorist laws for not revealing information. First of all, she probably really didn't know anything, but it is her right under the law to remain silent, and when she did remain silent as a legal right, she was charged with terrorism. On the scale of things, what the government of China is doing does not fall short of what other major countries are doing.

After my recital of this (in which I already explained this attitude), you come back saying to exactly what the Chinese have tried to say to the Tibetans - that I "suffer from delusion and madness, and a writer of fiction." So really, you are just employed by the Chinese Government to spread their 'bullsh*t' and dis-information, and to accuse those offering a more truthfull situation. (mine isn't perfect, I know. Yours is wrong in its accusations)

You argue with my writing (and sometimes don't even answer questions, but veer off on tangents) not for the sake of debating the situation, but merely intend to be belligerent. You stand for something so definitely in the wrong and aim to uphold the Chinese dis-information regime. I will only now regard you as a puppet (node) planted here to expulge this bullsh*t. It is pointless even speaking with people like you.

Buddy, you can think what you like. As a very intelligent Irish teacher once said to us, there is no such thing as 'free speech', only 'free thought'. I don't work for the Chinese Government and I am not a puppet to anybody, so think what you like, only just keep it to yourself. You need a psychiatrist, don't get paranoid.

Do you have a problem with communism or the Chinese? The Communists took China because they had a fight with the Nationalists. The Nationists took power from the Qings because the Qings let the Empire go broke. The Empire went broke because the West (mainly the British) got its people hooked on opium, and then it got broken up by the Europeans and the Japanese. Before that every Nationality, including the Tibetans, in the Chinese Empire were basically doing OK. The Tibetans acted as the clergy to the Qings, and very happy to be a part of the Empire. So don't blame the Chinese. Had the West and the Japanese left the Qings alone, perhaps the Tibetans outside Tibet wouldn't be complaining right now; however the West and Japan would be a poorer place because of all the loot from China they would have missed. When the Communists came to power in China after the country had been looted and raped by Europeans and the Japanese, the nation had nothing left. You want to complain, then complain to the Western powers and to the Japanese, and see what replacements they'll give you for what they have taken. 9 Oct 06.

The ideals of Democracy and Communism are very noble and I am sure that they would work very well were they truly that. But what we have seen of history is that these Communist countries were ruled by militaristic despotic dictators (not all but most) which goes against the Communist ideal of equality first and formost. So what we saw/see in Russia, Germany, Myanmar, China, Indonesia etc. was more of a dictatorship of ruthless cruelty, oppression and militaristic control while being told all of these were efforts 'for the people by the people' and a Chinese specialty of 'a heaven on earth'.

I thought a 'heaven on earth' was a euphemism or expression for a brothel. 13 Oct 06

Haven't you got the left and right mixed up? Germany under Hitler was not communist, and Indonesia has never been ruled by communists. I've never come across 'a heaven on earth' as a Chinese speciality. 12 Oct 06

Democracy (as we know it) isn't infinitely better though (minus the ruthlessness and control). 'Prime Ministers and Pesidents' but really they are power hungry and serve their own interests and opportunities. Of cause, there are a few who don't. But the majority of large governments fall into this catagory. It is a shame really, cos there's nothing wrong with these Democratic or Communist ideals.

If you had actually read the autobiography of the Dalai Lama, his resoning is very complete, and he doesn't show biased tendencies at all. He even explain why and for what reasons. If you can pass off what he writes in his book the same way that the PRC government did, then your not even here/there to see reason.

End of discussion. It starts as one, but degrades into a slinging match, which is pointless with people like you. Withywindle 12:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. 12 Oct 06

Certainly right is not might. And in the case of Tibet, it was the Lhasa government that applied the use of force first. Chinese government (Qing) was invited into Lhasa in 1792 to help the Tibetans deter the aggression from Nepal. When the top Lamas could not resolve their succession problem, it was Emperor Qian Long's 23-point edict that helped them solve the problem. When they had to pay the British astronomical amount of indemnity after Younghusband's invasion in 1904, it was Beijing that helped them pay in the Sino-British Convention in 1906. But it was the 13th Dalai Lama who staged the bloody coup to murder the Han Chinese in Tibet from 1912-1913.206.195.188.250 19:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Withywindle:

Technically speaking, it is correct that "Chinese (I guess you mean Han Chinese) and Tibetans (I guess you mean Tibetan Chinese) are the same race. If both these groups migrate to US, they are both classified under the same race "Asian Americans".

Not only is it technically correct that Han Chinese and Tibetan Chinese the same race, they are the same race scientifically. 6 Oct 06

Regarding why Tibet was not recognized as an independent country like East Timor did, you cited the reasons like "West need cheap Chinese clothing". But may I remind you that when PLA advanced into Tibet in 1950, the West needed absolutely nothing from PRC. So why didn't the West recognize Tibet as an independent country in 1950? It is because all along the West had recognized Tibet as a part of China. In 1942, US State Department told Chinese government that it never disputed Chinese osvereignty claim over Tibet.64.203.20.215 07:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Is this discussion on race really relevant? Shall US racial classifications determine whether we regard Chinese and Tibetans as two distincts groups?

Yes it is relevant as some people are saying that China should be split into 2 polities of Han China and Tibet because the 2 peoples differ by race. So one argument is: same race, same country. Secondly, no, US racial classification should not determine whether the 2 are distinct racial groups; these 2 groups belong to the same race regardless of how the US classify them. This is a scientific fact. 6 Oct 06

Second, as Melvyn Goldsten pointed out in the Snow Lion and the Dragon, the main reason why Britain - one of the main Western interests in the area - did not recognize Tibet as independent was that the British government was concerned about the percarious state of Hong Kong at the time. I also suspect that the US government did not want to disturb its relationship with the Kuomintang. --Niohe 12:33, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

In 1950, Britain was deferring to India. In 1942, the British Foreign Office sent messages to both China and the US detailing Tibet's "de facto independence" (which is legally the same as plain old independence.) Of course, 1942 is pretty late in the day for the British to be taking a stand. (Simla was signed in 1914.) By that time the KMT had made significant headway in promoting the idea that Tibet was part of China. I've read Goldstein's account and I don't think the delay had to do any specific fear concerning HK or some other issue. It was a bunch of bureaucrats passing around a hot potato. They kept hoping that China would ratify Simla so they wouldn't have to make a decision.

Here is the US State Department position in 1950:

The United States, which was one of the early supporters of the principle of self-determination of peoples, believes that the Tibetan people has the same inherent right as any other to have the determining voice in its political destiny....[T]he United States Government recognizes the de facto autonomy that Tibet has exercised since the fall of the Manchu Dynasty [1912], and particularly since the Simla Conference.Kauffner 15:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is the US State Department position in 1942 regarding the Tibet region of China:

"The United States considers the Tibet Autonomous Region or TAR (hereinafter referred to as "Tibet") as part of the People's Republic of China. This longstanding policy is consistent with the view of the entire international community, including all China's neighbors: no country recognizes Tibet as a sovereign state. Moreover, U.S. acceptance of China's claim of sovereignty over Tibet predates the establishment of the People's Republic of China. In 1942, we told the Nationalist Chinese government then headquartered in Chongqing (Chungking) that we had "at no time raised (a) question" over Chinese claims to Tibet. Because we do not recognize Tibet as an independent state, the United States does not conduct diplomatic relations with the representatives of Tibetans in exile."

The PRC government has also been a long time supporter of the principle of national self-determination. Beijing has lent its support to the national self-determination movements in the 3rd world countries including those struggles in Palestine, former Apartheid South Africa, East Timor, Vietnam,....etc.166.122.98.179 18:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Naturally, most government will support the principle of national self-determination when it suits them. Woodrow Wilson coined the term "self-determination", but he had no interest in talking to Ho Chi Minh, who the U.S. would later fight a war against. China, too, supports self-determination "for thee, but not for me". This sort of maneuvering by the powers doesn't set a precedent that's very relevant here, because it's obviously biased by self interest.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 19:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Withywindle:

You claim that you represent an indpendent voice and is not affiliated with any religion or government. But your essay seems to be more biased than the propaganda that Dharamsala churns out. For example, you wrote that "Lets go back to 1949. Tibet had its own government. It comprised of three large regions; Amdo to the north east, Kham to the east U-Tsang the large western half. The Dalai Lama was the head of the government....."

That is a sheer distortion of history. Even pro-Tibet website admits that Lhasa government had long lost control of Qinghai (Amdo) and Western Sichuan (Kham). Here is an quote from an article in Phayul: "Before the Chinese invasion, the Lhasa Government did not exercise control over the areas beyond what is roughly the Central Tibetan province of U-Tsang, the region today demarcated as Tibet Autonomous Region. While all Tibetans shared common cultural and religious traits, and Lhasa was unquestionably the spiritual heart of the country, most of the province of Kham and all of Amdo were de facto independent territories with shifting political loyalties, sometimes paying tribute to Lhasa, and sometimes to the Chinese, and more often than not, to neither. China immediately took advantage of these ground realities. The 17-Point Agreement, which it forced upon the Tibetan government in 1951, applied only to Central Tibet, the area controlled by the Lhasa government. Amdo and most of Kham were appended to the Chinese provinces of Qinghai, Gansu, Szechuan and Yunnan.

It was only after coming into exile in 1959 that the concept of a greater Tibet – comprising U-Tsang, Kham and Amdo – evolved to reflect the aspirations of refugees from all three provinces who had fought together against the Chinese, and represented a renewed awareness of Tibet as a nation-state."

If Qinghai (Amdo) had been under the control of Lhasa government, why did Regent Reting have to pay the Qinghai warlord General Ma for passage after the toddler 14th Dalai Lama was identified and located in Eastern Qinghai in 1930s? 206.195.188.250 20:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Saying that what The Tibetan Government in Exile (Dharamsala) churns out is propaganda, seems incredibly biased to me.

I have a question for Ian: You let on as though you know a lot about Tibet's history and situation, but what are your resources on the matter? I wouldn't be trusting anything coming out of China. Remember, history is written by the victors. (Thus I would say much of the western world history of the 'Dark Ages' would be cherished novels by the Catholic Church). I would seemingly contradict a quite a bit that you say, but, find it hard to believe the immense amounts of technicality portrayed in your writings, which has a tendancy to bury certain matters. Withywindle 09:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Is (de facto independence) legally equivalent to (plain old independence)?

De facto is not de jure. According to Wikipedia's definition, de facto designates illegitimate action of what happens in practice. And in the case of Tibet government between 1913 and 1950, it was not even de facto independent since it did not exercise absolute control over the territory that it claimed. 206.195.188.250 00:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Realistically, no state has any de jure justification. They exist because they say they do.

Personally, I think you're right in the first point: it is a misconception that there was a Tibetan state including the three provinces before the Communists took over (although, it's interesting to note Lhasa's intervention in Kham politics in the 19th century). Ideally, I'd like to see several Tibetan states instead of just one. However one Tibetan state is better than 0.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

US (at least the original 13 states) had de jure justificiation. In the Treaty of Paris (1783), Britain relinquished its sovereign rights over the 13 colonies and recognized them as sovereign states.

But after the so-called "revolution" (in fact a bloody coup which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Chinese soldiers staged by the supposedly benevolent peace-loving 13th Dalai Lama in 1912), no Chinese central governments, be it warlord government, KMT or CCP, had ever signed any treaty to recognize an independent Tibet.

If exile Tibetans really desire an independent country, why doesn't Dharamsala ask New Delhi to return traditional Tibetan homeland that India grabbed like Tawang to them? The first new Tibetan state can be established in Tawang -- If New Delhi has the courage to do so. 63.166.120.27 02:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Under the Montevideo Convention, there are four criteria an entity must meet to be considered independent. Some would add a fifth citeria: recognition by a major established state. But still, it is a set of facts that determines if an entity is legally an independent state. There is no international body that has the authority to decided that de facto state is not legally independent. Nowadays a state needs to be a member of the UN to be treated as an equal soveriegn nation, but that certainly wasn't true back in 1950. An entity that fulfills the legal citeria for independence is independent in fact and therefore independent in law. So it's a different situation from say, a "de facto standard," which implies that there is a standard in practical use not recognized by the offical standards-setting body.

As far as the US position on Tibet goes, the U.S. has recognized Tibet as Chinese territory since 1966. In 1960, the US secretary of state issued a statement which denies that Tibet is PRC territory.

On the issue of what to do about the problem, I don't think it is appropriate for us to be picking numbers of Tibetan states like magicians naming cards. Tibetans (and other Chinese) need to be able to express their opinions freely. Then local elections can be held. Examining the results will make it possible to propose a solution based on the principle of self-determination.Kauffner 02:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ian, do you really think that, if the British government had refused to sign the Treay of Paris, the U.S. would still be some sort of "illegal country" to this day? And what gave the British government the right to say "yea" or "nay" on that, anyway? Nothing, that's what; or, else, it's just because they said they did.

Kauffner, I quite agree that it's not "appropriate for us to be picking numbers of Tibetan states like magicians naming cards." I'm just saying that almost everyone seems to assume that it would be one, and I see no good reason to assume that.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Kauffner: First of all, whatever passed in Montevideo Convention is not any kind of international law. Its signatories were all states in Americas. No country from Asia and of course China ever participated in the conference. In fact, such conference was only the byproduct of the Monroe Doctrine. If its principle must be applied, it can only be applied onto the states in the North and South American continents.

And if there were without the Treaty of Paris, US probably would have not survived. Why do you think Benjamin Franklin had to travel all the way to Paris for the treaty?

And in case of Tibet, if the 13th Dalai Lama used force to change the status quo in 1913 (which change was never recognized by any member of the entire international community), there is nothing wrong for the PRC to use force to restore it to the previous status quo in 1950. 64.203.20.215 10:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

The Montevideo Convention is considered to be a codification of pre-existing customary law, so it doesn't matter who signed it or who didn't. I brought it up to explain what the British Foreign Office meant by "de facto independence." It is not my contention that China recognized Tibetan independence.

Franklin was U.S. ambassador to France. He didn't have to travel anywhere to sign the Treaty of Paris.Kauffner 14:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The customary international law before the Montevideo Convention had variation to some degrees, i.e. whether a state needs foreign recognition to be qualified as an independent state. The participating states in the Montevideo Convention codeified it but apparently that was just a regional meeting and those principles could be just applied regionally (In fact, three of the participants abstained).

And by 1950 after UN had been established for 4 years when new states like Israel and South Korea had already been created under UN auspice, the "de facto independent" Tibet was still not considered as a "legally independent country" in UN. Why wasn't "de facto independence" treated as "legal independence" by UN if Montevideo Convention carried so much weight as you assumed? In fact, in the 3 resolutions passed by UN related to Tibet, Tibet was never mentioned as a country or a nation even though PRC was not a UN member when those resolutions were passed.

And by the way, Hawaiian Monarchy was not only a de facto independent country but an absolutely legal independent country when US occupied it in 1892 (US had signed treaties with the kingdom). So under the Montevideo Convention, shouldn't US grant the right of self-determination to the Native Hawaiian people and gave them back the stolen land?

But too bad Akaka bill was defeated in the House even without mentioning a word about the Montevideo Convention. And even if the descendants of the Hawaiian Kingdom file suit in the International Court of Justice and win, it doesn't help their case since US has withdrawn from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986.67.53.62.250 23:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

South Korea joined the UN in 1991. A more relevant example is Nepal, which joined in 1955. The UN admitted only nine new members in 1946-50 (out of 31 applicants). Hawaiians, whether ethnic Hawaiian or otherwise, have self-determination now. In my view, a racial qualification for voting is undemocratic.Kauffner 12:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

On December 12, 1948, by its resolution 195 [1] in the Third General Assembly, United Nation recognised Republic of Korea as the sole legal government of Korea. If Tibet had been all along an independent country, why didn't UN recognize Tibet as a legally independent country between 1946 (the year UN was founded) and 1950 (the year China reasserted authority) as it had to ROK?

You mean Native Hawaiians have self-determination already? So where is their self-government? How come the Governor of Hawaii is a Caucasian woman but not a Native Hawaiian? How come Hawaiian language is not taught in the Public Schools in Hawaii? 206.195.188.250 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

The General Assembly vote on Korea related to the UN-supervised election that had just been held in South Korea. There was no vote of this kind for any other country. Hawaiians are free to elect whoever they like as their governor and they can have whatever language they like taught in their schools. The are more ethnic Japanese in Hawaii than either Whites or ethnic Hawaiians. Ethnic Hawaiians were a already a minority at the time of annexation.Kauffner 16:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

When democracy comes into China, Native Tibetans will be free to elect whoever they like as their governor and they will have whatever language they like taught in their schools. I absolutely support such democratic rights. But that is democracy, not self-determination. Why did Japanese immigrants have anything to do with US annexation of Hawaii in 1898?206.195.188.250 18:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Why should Tibetan democracy be conditional on what happens elsewhere? Tibet can lead the way for the rest of China.

Tibet lead the way? Has tibet ever tried to feed China? The people of Tibet is dependent upon China, not the other way round. Don't get cocky. 7 Oct 06

If the U.S. had not annexed Hawaii, the country would have become Japanese. Or at least that is what was generally believed at the time.Kauffner 05:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Kauffner, when democracy comes to a huge country like China, of course some places will have a faster pace while some places will lag behind in term of implementation. Maybe Shanghai, Guangzhou or Lhasa will outpace the other regions. I have no opinion on this issue.

May I remind you that in the turn of the 20th century, US/Britain and Japan were allies. Washington and London perceived Japan as the only rising star and the only civilized country in Asia. Three countries participated jointly in the military expedition into Beijing during the Boxer movement in 1900, Britain signed an alliance treaty with Japan in 1902 and Teddy Roosevelt brokered the peace treaty between Japan and Russia at 1905 in Portsmouth. Of course US and Britain didn't mind the Japanese imperial policies in Ryukyu, Taiwan, Korea and Manchuria since (1) They were at the expenses of China and Czarist Russia; and (2) U.S. and Britain were basically doing the same dirty stuffs simultaneously in other parts of the world. So your justification of annexation of Hawaii couldn't stand because (1) US and Japan were allies (2) Japan didn't have a Blue Water Navy fleet in 1898 {in fact, all of Japan's battleships were ordered from the shipyards in Britain at that time} (3) And so you mean since Japan would sooner or later annex Hawaii, why didn't U.S. annex it first? Such logic is no different from Stalin and Hilter dividing Poland! 64.203.20.194 21:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Response to Withywindle

Human's did not evolve from monkeys. The modern monkeys and man shared a common primate ancestor millions of years ago. Humans did not evolve from apes either. Both modern apes and humans shared a common ancestor that was more recent than the common ancestor with the monkeys. This common ancestor was not an ape, but is described as ape-like. Maybe from the modern apes' point of view, they might describe this common ape-human ancestor as human-like and not ape-like. Tibetans and Han Chinese belong to the same anthropological race called Mongoloid. Bhuddism is not a religion, and Tibetan 'Bhuddism' is not in fact true 'Bhuddism', but a mixture of beliefs and customs. The exiled Tibetans, including the dalai lama fled the country, but were allowed to do so by the Chinese government. If the Chinese government wanted to cut short their 'escape' or to take their lives, it would have done so with ease. Tibet is a part of modern China just in the same way Alaska is a part of the USA. 25 Sep 06.

Withywindle, which planet are you from? Tibetan religion is preaching peace? All the major religions of the world preach/ preached peace, but look at the state of the world. Sri Lanka is Bhuddist, and look at the fighting there. Obviously you are so 'innocent' that you don't realise that nobody practise what they preach. Look at Mugabe now and what he was preaching 30 years' ago. Tibetan theocrats were not the peaceful people you think, historically they were violent, jealous and sadistic; much worse than the European medieval religious system. The Tibetans are not Bhuddists, they are Animists; Bhuddism (in selective parts) form only a part of their belief. Take a look at the list of Nobel Peace Prize winners and see how many of them have blood on their hands. Sorry to wake you up from your idealistic dream. 29 Sep 06

I basically sympathise with your arguments, but I think you are the begging the question when you say, "Those who know anything about Buddhism will know that it is a religion that does not inspire violence. Rather forgiveness, love, understanding and a belief that nothing on earth is 'permanent'. I would say more but I think that is enough to get my point across. So how would a culture with such beliefs be accused of brainwashing theocracy?" As nice as it would be to think that, since Buddhism teaches forgiveness, love, understanding, and impermanence, therefore these virtues adhere in the followers themselves, we know from history that Buddhists, being only human, are fully susceptible to the range of vices. So, there's no reason to believe that a Buddhist country would be incapable of producing a theocratic government. After all, Christianity teaches basically the same things about forgiveness, love, and understanding, but we know that Christians have shed a lot of blood in history.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 00:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Buddhism usually does not breed violence but there were many exceptions. The most notorious case is about the thousands of Buddhist warrior-monks that did terrible things during the Warring States period (15th & 16th centuries) in Japan. These warrior-monks kept concubines and barbecued meat in their monasteries. Moreover, they involved in coups and actively participated in many battles. In 1571, these warrior-monks were massacred en masse by Oda Nobunaga at Mt. Hiei. 67.53.62.250 02:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Well, of course, people control there own actions, whether they are of any religion or not. They may learn these Buddhist teachings, but whether they implement them is another matter. That said, I do not think that the Tibetan Government prior to 1559 could be realistically accused of a brainwashing theocracy. The majority of Tibetans back then - within the area governed by the Tibetan Government - weren't displeased with governing. Because if they had been, chances are they would have welcomed the Chinese 'Peaceful Liberation of Tibet' rather than opposing it in what ways they could. And, throughout history, what country or ethnic group, hasn't committed bad deeds? I don't think you can look back hundreds of years into the history of a culture, to find some felony, and then apply it to the modern day scenario, and thus judge them on the matter. By all means, the last 100 - 150 years. Going further back than that actually starts to lose it's relevance in tackling a modern issue.

Withywindle 06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Tibetans didn't resist much about the peaceful liberation of Tibet in 1950-51 since the resistance was in a very small scale. Rather certain segment of the society was very resentful towards the more radical socio-political policy experimented by Mao in 1958-59.206.195.188.250 20:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

81.131.82.85 23:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Of course the Tibetans didn't resist much; they have been starved by the lama theocrats and waiting for their fellow Chinese to feed them. 8 Oct 06.

The reason it was on a very small scale (if you would call it that) was only because the Tibetan people had no army to speak of and were very poorly equipped for a war with China. So they couldn't really put up a big fight. The support that they received from the CIA was only ever enough to haggle, and never enough to win. And the CIA withdrew all support in 1969 anyway, leaving the Tibetans in a bad way.

The Tibetan government had a well-trained army after 1913 with British-supplied ammunition. In fact, their army kept pushing the Han Chinese eastward and by 1918, their forces moved to the east bank of Yangtze River and forced the Sichuan warlord to sign an armistic. Pro-Tibet website distorted that armistic as a "Sino-Tibetan treaty which recognized Tibet's independence". Of course, Dharamsala wants to make you believe that Tibetans have been all along peaceful people. But in reality it is not so. However, the Tibetan army in 1950 was no match with PLA whom had fought KMT and Japan for over 20 years.67.53.62.250 19:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

The Dalai Lama dismissed his British-trained officers in 1925 and the capabilities of the Tibetan army declined after that. The big monastaries saw the army as rival (and China was not preceived as a threat in 1925.) Of course the Tibetan army was "no match" for the Chinese army all along, at least in the sense that it was always much smaller and had far less firepower. But the mountain ranges made it very difficult for China to send even a small military force to Lhasa -- up until 1954 when a highway was completed.Kauffner 05:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Huh, Ian failed to mention that. What did it matter if they had an army of sorts decades before the point of conflict? The point is that they didn't have one (of any effect) at the time of the Chinese invasion. So in effect, Tibet didn't have an army.

They enjoyed small successes in the struggle, owing to their knowledge of the land. Resistance groups were formed, but they weren't 'officially' trained soldiers, more like just defending their country and lively-hood in a crisis. Withywindle 08:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If they didn't have an army, then it is even hard to qualify Tibet between 1913-1950 as an independent country.206.195.188.250 20:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Ian

81.131.82.85 23:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) Whether the land mass that is now modern China, was in the past split between an older version of China and Tibet or not, is irrelevant because we live in the present and not the past. If every country has to revert to past civilisations and boundaries to justify its legitimacy, then it is very hard for the likes of the USA, Canada, Australia and countries in South America to justify their present existence because these lands were claimed for European sovereigns on the basis that legally they had no inhabitants and were virgin lands, even though the explorers as well as the European sovereigns, knew full well that they were inhabited by different peoples. Unlike Europeans, the Chinese do not deny that there is a people called the Tibetans.

And I would not say that only a small segment of the society was resentful towards - not just Mao's political policy - but to the Chinese invasion altogether. No, the greater portion didn't want them there altogher, but if you resistered you were imprisoned, or simply directly killed. The Chinese kept a very tight lid on any 'anti-Chinese' anything, thus, what we heard is more likely what was intended. This is all in Sorrow Mountain. An eye witness is better than any historical text or record.Withywindle 08:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

All said, a century ago the West and Japan denied the Chinese their national aspirations, now many Chinese (not all) deny the very same thing to the Tibetans. I'm not saying that it is self-evident that Tibet should be "independent", neither is it self-evident that it has "always been part of China". But when I hear people talking using old-school imperialist arguments to justify the status quo, I get worried. I find this inability to empathize (將心比心) with the Tibetans very troubling.--Niohe 12:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, I think you have messed up the time line. When Chinese revolutionaries strived for their national aspiration a century ago, they have already included Tibet as a part of China. Sun Yat Sen, a widely recognized liberal democrat, who retired from the first president of the new Chinese Republic, wrote Methods and Strategies of Establishing the Country (建國方略) in 1919 that proposed to build a railroad into Tibet. (But under the current distorted media coverage, it becomes that it was Mao who first suggested.)

I agree with you that Tibet has not always been part of China -- at least not in the 8th century. But when Tibet became a part of China, Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, California,....and Hawaii were not yet parts of U.S. So do you suggest that U.S. should give up all those imperialist acquisitons? If you agree that U.S. should retreat back to the national boundary of 1776, I will also agree that China's should go back to that of 1776 too!

By the way, when has U.S. cared about the national aspiration of its minorities? When U.S. annexed Hawaii in 1898, 27,000 Native Hawaiians petitioned Congress against the annexation. When U.S. held a referendum in Hawaii in 1959 for admission as a State to the Union, only American citizens could vote while those self-proclaimed Hawaiian nationals could not.206.195.188.250 18:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Ian, your response just proves my point. Who said we should have the US as the yardstick here? Two wrong doesn't make one right. Sure, Sun Yat-sen included Tibet, but do you even care about what Tibetans think?--Niohe 22:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, What is wrong with using U.S., the champion of freedom, as the yardstick? Okay, if you don't like U.S. as a yardstick, then what about India? In 1948, UN passed the resolution that recommended self-determination for the people in Kashmir. Over half a century afterwards, has India followed through with the UN resolution? You are unrealistic in expecting a higher ethic and moral standard from PRC that even democratic countries like U.S. and India cannot fulfil!166.122.98.179 23:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

I was asking how you are thinking, not how the governments of the US, India and China justify their actions. The Japanese used the annexation of Hawaii as an argument to justify their expansion in East Asia, long before they turned really aggressive in the 1930s. That doesn't put the US or Japan in a good light, but shall we make that kind of policies a standard of behavior? If we take your argument to its logical conclusion it is "might is right" and this makes it difficult to have any discussion at all.

Fair enough. Now I have an idea how you are thinking. This is not the UN and we're not here to solve the "Tibet problem". Let's discuss how to improve the Tibet article.--Niohe 00:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, there is no such a thing as the 'Tibet problem'. This phrase appeared to be dreamt up by you and only you. The tibetan theocrats have to learn (and probably already know) that they will not be allowed in again to brainwash people into believing that suffering and cruelity are acceptable and form a part of the people's lives which can't be changed but will continue in a rebirthing cycle. The West does not allow this, so why should China? 6 Oct 06.

Niohe, you ask me what the Tibetan people think but since I don't have a crystal ball, I don't know what they think. But I can judge by circumstantial evidence. My conclusion is: (1) Unlike what Dharamsala said, Hans and Tibetans get along very well. There have never been any communal riots like those between Hindu and Moslems in Gujarat or like those between Black and White in Cincinnati; (2) Like other parts of China, the Tibetans don't have political freedom but they do have personal freedom and some degrees of religious freedom. Many of them are well-off enough to study overseas and lately burn the furs they wear in response to the urge of Dalai Lama. Early this year 80,000 Tibetans from China went to attend Kalachakra in India.

Judged by such circumstantial evidences, I would say that the Tibetans inside China are at least not unhappy. And actually what you mean by "think" is the Dharamsala's version of history which is full of distortion and exaggeration. In their version of history, they also glorify might is right.166.122.98.179 00:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

I don't know what the Tibetans think either, neither do I buy everything Dharamsala says. But I'm happy that you seem at least be interested in what Tibetans think. There is also circumstantial evidence that indicate that many Tibetans are not happy as things are now. I don't think anyone would deny that great progress has been made in Tibet in recent year, but that may or may not lead to Tibetans accepting the status quo. And I don't know of any 20th century European government who did not claim that people living under European rule had it better now than before. Many Taiwanese got a good education under Japanese rule and studied abroad, but I guess they were happy when Japan lost World War Two.--Niohe 01:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, the question you pose: "may or may not lead to Tibetans accepting the status quo" has already got an answer which is "Yes". If Tibetans inside China do not accept the status quo, then Tibet should have already become another Chechyna or West Bank a long long time ago. But today huge number of tourists, Chinese and non-Chinese, are flocking into Tibet. If there is no peace in Tibet, will any tourists go there? Do you see any tourists in Chechyna or West Bank?

Well, of course the exile Tibetans are not satisfied with the status quo because: (1) They have vested interested in changing the status quo (2) They are stuck in hopeless places like India and Nepal without any prospect (3) They are financially broke and direly need a change no matter it is better or worse. But such despair is more of the concern for New Delhi instead of Beijing's.206.195.188.250 01:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Chaps

☻ Someone has poured you tea ☺

This isn't for political debate, however much we all love the situations abroad. Keep your hats on, and go and say something nice about each other at WP:TEA. Then come back, put some reggae on, and lie in the wet grass outside eating biscuits and drinking red wine. Go on. HawkerTyphoon 22:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hawaii and Tibet

I can't see what this discussion of Hawaii is taking the discussion and I suggest that we stop it. Now. Why don't we try to improve the article, which badly needs editing, trying to focus on verifiable information. For my part, I can write on Qing rule over Tibet, which is the part I know the most about. I have already reworked the article on the amban for what it's worth.--Niohe 16:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I dragged Hawaii into discussion because irrelevant issue like Montevideo Convention was being dragged into discussion. I don't understand why a Convention of American states in 1930s has anything to do with the Tibet Region of China either.206.195.188.250 18:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

I just browsed your rewritten article on Amban and I disagreed on some points:

(1) Your wrote that Mongolia, Turkistan and Tibet recognized Qing's suzerainty. But I don't see this term as appropriate because when Qing incorporated these regions into China in the 17th & 18th centuries, nobody in these regions or Qing court ever heard of the term suzerainty. You are applying a 19th century western political concept onto events under the Confucian political hierarchy that happened in the 17th century. (2) The political term Turkistan didn't appear until 1930s when the abortive East Turkestan Republic was born. In the 18th Century when that region was incorporated, it was known as the "Northern and Southern Routes of Tian Shan". (3) Court of Colonial Affairs is also a misnomer since Qing Court neither extracted raw materials from those regions nor populated those regions with immigrants. A more correct translation should be Court of Frontier Affairs.206.195.188.250 19:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

I have little time to respond, but just a quick note:

1) Mongolia, Turkistan and Tibet were not incorprorated into China in the 17th and 18th centuries in the sense that they were provinces of China. These territories ran their internal affairs largely without interference from Beijing, but recognized Qing suzerainty - not Chinese sovereignty - in different ways. These three territories were not run by Chinese officials like other terriotiries under Qing rule and were not part of China. Chinese officials like Wei Yuan or Chinese nationalists like Zhang Taiyan did not refer to these areas as part of China. That is a post-1911 construction.

2) Turkistan is a term which has been in use for much longer than you think. In front of me, I have Brunnert and Hagelstrom's book 'Present Day Political Organzation of China' (1910), where Xinjiang is referred to as "Eastern Turkestan". If you give me time, I can give you even earlier sources.

3) "Court of colonial affairs" is one possible translation of Lifanyuan, which was widely used by Westerners in the 19th century. See Brunnert & Hagelstrom. "Colonial" does not necessarily mean that the Qing empire extracted resources from these areas.--Niohe 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting discussion, but it should probably be moved to Talk:Amban, no?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, Manchuria was also not administered as Chinese provinces in Qing Dynasty. So do you mean they are not parts of China? (That is exactly the false argument presented by Japan after the Mukden Incident in 1931.) And what does 理藩院 (which you misinterpret as "Court of Colonial affairs") exactly mean in Chinese? According to online Chinese Etymology website, 藩 means: a fence/a hedge/a boundary/a frontier/a barrier. Where comes the meaning of colony?206.195.188.250 20:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

First, please refer to the source I quoted above before you accuse me of misinterpreting. Second, fan also meant "vassal state", "feudatory" or "dependency," which is a close approximation of "colony" while admittedly not identical. You go and check almost any good Chinese dictionary and you would find that translation of fan. Also go and check almost any English language work on Qing frontier policy, and you will find Lifanyuan being translated as variants of "Court of Colonial Affairs". I even suspect that this was the official translation in late Qing China, but I am not hundred per cent sure. Third, I do not appreciate you bringing up what the Japanese said in 1931 to refute my argument, which is a clear case of guilt by association.--Niohe 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I searched at least a half dozen online Chinese dictionaries and nowhere do I find fan means colony. Many interpret it as dependency or frontier. I don't doubt that some old books written by western diplomats in the late 19th century translating the term mistakenly as colony. But since they were incorrect (most likely none of them knew Chinese), should we follow their steps in misinterpreting the term?166.122.98.179 23:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Please check the sources I am referring to before you dimiss them. On-line dictionaries are good tools for checking the meaning of Chinese words today, but not how they were understood in the 19th century and earlier, which is what I am talking about. And you are simply wrong to assume what you should prove: that Western diplomats had no knowledge in the Chinese language. If you have had any exposure at all to 19th century sources you would be surprised to find how well-informed Western diplomats were and how good the linguistic expertise they had access to was. Whether that knowledge translated into benign policies towards China is of course an entirely different matter.

It is not up to us to determine truth, but to quote reliable and verifiable sources, that is what I have attempted to do. If you think you have access to better sources, I am eager to learn. Until then, please refrain from dismissing sources you have not examined yourself.--Niohe 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, what do not mean by Qing suzerainty is not equivalent to Chinese sovereignty? From 1644-1911, Qing was China and China was Qing. If Qing was not China, why did Washington and London ask the new Chinese Republican government in 1912 to inherit all those treaties which Qing signed with U.S. and Britain? Why did U.S. and Britain demand the new Chinese Republic to pay the indemnities that were agreed upon by Qing Court? Why did U.S. and Britain still keep all those foreign concessions in cities like Shanghai which were ceded to them by Qing Court but not by the new Chinese government?206.195.188.250 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

What the US and British government said or did in 1912 is immaterial to what happened in the 18th and 19th century as regards the dependencies of the Qing Empire, which is what I thought we were discussing. I am not going to waste any time explanining to you the difference between suzerainty and sovereignty to you, please read up and get back with a more subtle argument.--Niohe 22:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by immaterial? You mean those Foreign service diplomats during the terms of Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson couldn't tell the difference between Qing and China?

What I mean by immaterial is that what happened in 1912 cannot explain what happened two or three hundred years earlier. Retroactive history is bad history.--Niohe 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

So you do agree that China was Qing and Qing was China by the turn of 1911/1912 as the British and US governments did at that time? Then there is no difference between Qing sovereignty/suzerainty and Chinese sovereignty/suzerainty in 1911.

No, I don't agree that China is identical with the Qing dynasty, and what the UK and US had to say about that is still immaterial. Foir the purposes of this artcile, what is interesting is what Qing and Tibetan statesmen had to say about the matter. I would expect you to agree with this point, since you believe that Western diplomats had no understanding of Qing policy, which was so "sophisticated and multi-layered that few western diplomats could understand at that time."--Niohe 04:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So what did the "Court of Frontier Affairs" in Qing Dynasty do? They were in charge of transforming those frontiers into Chinese provinces. There is a very close analogy: The Northern and Southern Routes of Tian Shan, were like the Cherokee Nation, the frontier of China/U.S. When time was ripe, this office turned that frontier into the Xinjiang province in 1888. It is just like U.S. ousted all the Cherokees (of course China kept all the Ugyurs, Kazaks, Tajiks intact in Xinjiang) and turned this Indian Territory into the State of Kentucky.206.195.188.250 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Yes, under the pressure of Western and Japanese imperialism, the Qing government attempted to transform its dependencies into provinces in the late 19th and early 20th century. But again, what happened in 1888 cannot explain what happened in 1644. Late Qing policies have very little to do with the origins of the Court of Colonial Affairs. The Qing government did not intend and did not attempt to assimilate these provinces into the administration of China Proper. No Han Chinese officials administered the dependencies, the Qing legal code did not extend to the dependencies, taxation did not work the same way, etc.--Niohe 23:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But in 1644 the only dependencies Qing Court had were those Mongols that resided in current day Inner Mongolia who were affiliated with the Manchus by marriage or even became part of the 8 Banner Army. Khalka Mongolia and Northern and Southern Routes of Tian Shan didn't become China's frontier until late 17th and early 18th century while Tibet didn't become until 1792. However, since 1870s Qing Court had diligently transformed these frontier regions into Chinese provinces. In fact, Yakub Beg's rebellion was quelled by a Han general and Xinjiang was then administered by Han civilian officials afterwards. Of course, the role of this office changed over time. Just like when US signed treaties with the Cherokee Nation, Washington might have never conceived of transforming that frontier into a State of the Union at that time.63.166.120.27 00:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

So actually we agree on most things after all? And the post-1870s policies you describe here sound stumblingly close to colonialism. Only one reservation, the Qing government attempted to integrate Tibet at a very late stage, around 1910 or so. Prior to that, Qing rule over Tibet was mostly indirect and tenuous at times. Perhaps we can leave Amban and Court of Colonial Affairs as they are for the time being?--Niohe 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So do you mean that the US incorporation of Cherokee Nation as an act of colonialism? And I don't agree with what you said about the role of Court of Frontier Affairs (CFA). In fact, under the Confucian political hierarchy, there were three layers of frontiers/dependencies/tributaries administered by CFA. The top layer was the frontier which included regions like Tibet and Northern and Southern Routes of Tian Shan. Qing's authority over them was much more than the term suzerainty implied. Qing asserted direct authority in many cases, i.e. over Tibet as prescribed in Qian Long's 23-point Edict. Qing dictated the method of succession of top lamas in addition to administrative order on banning foreigners entering Tibet. Such direct authority was much more than what a suzerain could do. The second layer was tributaries like Yee Dynasty of Korea, Ryukyu and Annam (Vietnam). China exercised suzerainty over them and granted them the privilege of trade. In return, these countries had to send regular tributes (annually or semi-annually) to Qing Court. When they were invaded, China had the moral obligation to defend them. The third layer was the loose tributaries like Siam (Thailand) which sent tributes irregularly to Beijing while Qing Court didn't have much obligation towards them. CFA's function was so sophisticated and multi-layered that few western diplomats could understand at that time.67.53.62.250 02:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

I would be very grateful if you could provide me with some credible sources supporting your statements regarding what you call the "Confucian political hierarchy" and how it affected Qing control over Tibet. I have already given you some evidence that this was not the case; I can give you more. But are you interested in that discussion? I just want to make sure, because I feel that I am wasting my time.

I am also interested how you justify your statement that CFA's function was so sophisticated and multi-layered that few western diplomats could understand at that time. Please support that statement somehow.

I have provided some sources, you have done very little effort refuting my claims. Instead you have been doing the following thing: that is "Posting messages expressing their own opinions as generally accepted facts without offering any proof or analysis." In other words you are a troll. If you find my statement uncivil or unfounded, I am willing to retract this. But you have to do better than you have done thus far.--Niohe 04:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, now you start on name calling.

Did I refute your argument with evidence and source? Of course, I did. But the problem is that you are evasive and refuse to face the TRUTH of Tibet: (1) As I told you and cited online dictionary, the term fan in Lifanyuan does not mean colony. You agree but somehow still keep using the wrong terminology Court of Colonial Affairs. So what is your rationale on insisting using such misnomer? You said because it was being used by the westerners in the 19th Century. But apparently they were wrong and why did you insist on keeping using such wrong term? (2) You wrote that These territories ran their internal affairs largely without interference from Beijing, but recognized Qing suzerainty - not Chinese sovereignty. I cited Qian Long's 23-point edict of 1793 which dictated the method of succession of top lamas and banned foreigners from entering Tibet -- which shows clearly Qing's exercise of authority in Tibet is way more than the scope of suzerainty. But you still insist that I have not refuted you flawed argument and asked for source. Since it seems you have problem in accurately understanding Chinese, let me cite from English source on Tibet: ttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14718a.htm The secular administration of Tibet includes a council (ka hia) of four ministers (kalon or kablon) of the third rank of Chinese officials, elected as a rule by the Peking government, on presentation by the Chinese amban; the treasury (shang shang) presided over by a kalon with three first-class councillors (tsai peng), and two second-class councillors (shang chodba); two controllers of the revenue (yerts' angba); two controllers of streets and roads (hierbang); two superintendents of police (shediba); two controllers of the stud (tâpeng); there are six military commanders (taipêng), with the fourth degree of Chinese rank, with twelve commanders of 200 men (jupêng), twenty-four kaipêng, and 120 ting pêng. Civil and military officials are designed under the general term fan muh. As the above Tibet page in the Catholic Encyclopedia shows, the Chinese were in charge of the secular affairs of Tibet while the lamas were only in control of the spiritual matter during Qing era. Well, I guess you would still argue that treasury, streets and roads....are not internal affairs.64.203.20.215 09:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

Perhaps you are not a troll, but a newcomer, whom I'm biting. The fact that you think that we are here to establish the "truth" about Tibet seems to indicate that you are unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies. If that is the case I offer my sincere apologies.

I have quoted two works that were published in Qing China by renowned Sinologists, works that have bee reprinted several times and are still used as reference tools by historians. You dismiss these sources as incorrect, apparently without having looked at them. Instead you are quoting the Catholic Encyclopedia, which was published in New York in 1913 as evidence. Am I the only person who sees the irony?

Now, I never said that Court of Colonial Affairs is the "correct" translation, all I said is that it a term which is widely used and one that Wikipedia users are likely to search for. There are other translations, but I chose this one and I can verify it. That's all I need to do. If you think there is a better translation, I advice you not to conduct your own original research and invent a new one, instead you can suggest an alternative one which you have found in authoritative literature on the subject. The Internet is not necessarily the place where you will find those sources.

None of the sources you have quoted show that Tibet was under "Chinese sovereignty". The Qianlong Edict shows that Qing emperors did have a say in the selection of the Dalai Lama. As we all know, subsequent emperors did not always exercise that prerogative and the Thirteenth Dalai Lama was selected without sanction from Beijing. Yes, the Qing government sent a host of officials to Lhasa, which the Tibetan government was supposed to consult with, but the entire Tibetan government was run by Tibetans for most of the Qing dynasty. The officials that are referred to in the entry seem to belong to the short-lived attempt by the Qing government to assert more control over Tibet in the last years of the dynasty. They were not successful, and by 1913 no Chinese officials had any auhtority over the Tibetan government. If you want to read more, please refer to Melvyn Goldstein's The Snow Lion and the Dragon.--Niohe 14:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, you wrote that by 1913 no Chinese officials had any authority over the Tibetan government.

But which authority enthroned the 10th Panchen Lama? The Chinese KMT government. Where was the 10th Panchen Lama enthroned? Amdo (Qinghai). When was the enthronement taken place? July 1949. This event took place before the PRC was established (and curiously the Panchen Lama page on Wikipedia omitted such important FACTS). If Chinese authority was not present in the Tibet region after 1913 as you mentioned, how could the enthronement happen? Moreover, the Chinese-appointed 10th Panchen Lama was widely welcomed by the Tibetan populace and the 14th Dalai Lama did not have a chance to meet him until 1951. So wasn't Emperor Qian Long's policy on choice of succession of top lamas inherited by the Chinese government and still be in force? Thanks for recommendation of Goldstein's book -- I have read it three times. It is thorough but biased. In fact, I read many other books on Tibet written by Grunsfeld, Shakya Tsering,.....etc.166.122.98.179 18:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Ian

By the way, Wikipedia has only very limited coverage of the various Panchen Lamas. So, it is not the case that this sort of information is excluded by some sort of POV-pushing. I encourage you to help us by adding more FACTS to the relevant articles. But, please register an account first so that I can keep track of what you're doing.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, I forget to address your inquiry about my source on Confucian World Order and Lifanyuan. Please read 清代藩部研究――以政治变迁为中心 written by 张永江. There were three to four layers of dependencies under Qing's political hierarchy: 宗藩, 藩属, 属国, and 藩部之属国. Under Lifanyuan, there were 直辖藩部, 兼辖藩部 and 名义藩部 Ian-- 19:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the book tip, I'll check it out. My point does however remain that English names that have long been in use should be considered legitimate in Wikipedia. Just look at it from the other point of view. 州 does not mean "a self-governing state" in Chinese, but we use if for US states in the Chinese language. European cabinets are usually responsible to the parliament, they are not "inner pavilions" 內閣, or secretariats under an autocratic emperor. Yet I do not see hoardes of angry Chinese-speaking Americans and Europeans on a campaign to set the names right (正名) on Chinese Wikipedia. But that is the nature of translation, you usually look for whatever terms you have at your disposal before you create a "correct" literal translation.--Niohe 01:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, "Office of Colonial Affairs" is not a legitimate term since Qing government had not use this term as the English legal name for Lifanyuan. It can only be called a "generally used term". And of course this is not a correct literal translation since you can never find 藩=colony in any Chinese-English dictionary. And 州 is not a good analogy since this character is not related to how that geographical region is administered. Guangdong is called a Province in Chinese while British Columbia is also called a Province in Chinese. But the word "Province" itself does not explain whether it is self-governed (in case of BC) or central government--appointed (in case of GD).Ian-- 23:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Qing government did not have an official English term for the Lifanyuan, so what? This is the English language Wikipedia, where we try to stick to the terms and usages that have the widest currency in the English language. If you have a gripe with the way Qing government organs are translated into English, write a manual or something. Wikipedia is not the venue for that discussion.

You seem to think that a "legitimate" translation of a Chinese term must embody the literal meaning of each character. Sorry to break this on you, but that is not how translation is usually done. Not even the Manchus translated Chinese that way in the "good old days". Context matters. Whether I can or cannot find a dictionary that translates 藩 as "colony" is an interesting challenge, next time I go to the library I might check that one out. But let me guess, if I find a dictionary from 1890 or so which gives exactly that translation, you will probably dismiss that on account of how ignorant Western dictionary compilers were in those days.

You response to 州 puzzles me, because it proves my point, not yours. 州 is not a particulalrly good translate of the cocept of a state in the US sense of the word. But shall we start a Wikipedia to set that right? I don't think so. And you didn't respond to my point about the appropriateness of the term 內閣 for European governments, so I assume that you agree with me.--Niohe 00:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Niohe, though this is not a translation forum, your bizarre analogy on 內閣 really puzzles me. The term 內閣 (inner chamber) itself does not denote whether it is responsible to the executive branch or legislative branch. For instance, even though the cabinet of Japan is also responsible to the Parliament as most European governments do, its official Japanese translation for cabinet is still 內閣, i.e. 內閣官房長官安倍晉三 (Minister w/o portfolio Mr. Abe in [Koizumi's] cabinet). Of course, you have the liberty to define that 內閣 must be responsible to an autocratic emperor as you did here. But for anyone who has attained a certain degree of fluency in Chinese language, he definitely would not agree so.Ian-- 19:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you were the one making this into a translation forum, but I may be mistaken. The fact that the constituent characters in the compound 內閣 says nothing about the form of government is exactly my point. It is an arbirtarily chosen word taken out of context and applied to another, and somehow it has stuck. That's just the way languages evolve.

The point I'm trying to make is that you can't stare yourself blind at the meaning of individual characters, which is what a lot of people do here on Wikipedia. I'm turning this argument around to help you see the point. According to the character-by-character standard of reasoning, there are numerous words in Chinese that are "incorrect". Another example: the English word "Republic" is derived form a Latin term meaning "from the people", but the Sino-Japanese compound 共和國 roughly means "country of shared harmony". Where is the outrage?

To understand the Chinese translation of 'Republic', you need to go back to ancient Greece. Plato put forth his idea of democracy and republicanism (ref Plato's Republic). A democracy meaning the rule of the people in majority agreement is in fact undesirable, because if 51% of the people voted for the deaths of the other 49%, then that would pass the test of a democratic decision. Plato introduced the idea of a republic. A republic is a state where every citizen had inalienable rights, such as a right to life, no matter what the democratic majority favoured. The Chinese translation of republic is thus not 'country of shared harmony' but 'A State with Equal Rights for All' or 'A State where All Peacefully Enjoy Equal Rights' . JC 21 Oct 06. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.27.150 (talk)

In other words, 共和國 is not a literal translation of "republic", which is exactly my point.--Niohe 23:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your point is incorrect. The art of translating from one language to another is deeper than simply translating the meaning of the individual units composing the words or phrases. The combination of characters or morphemes in the Chinese language modifies the meaning and thus the translation of the real meaning into the second language. Imagine a language that uses a double negative to mean a single negative; literal translation of the double negative into a language that uses a single negative to denote a single negative would turn the meaning in the first language into something that is exactly the opposite of the intended original meaning in the second language. JC 22 Oct 06

Please look at what you wrote -- "You are the one making this into a translation forum". But who is the one that keeps constantly posting irrelevant terms -- 州,內閣,共和國 -- and translated over here? -- It is YOU not me.Ian-- 20:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, you started off by making arguments as to what constitutes "a correct literal translation", and I responded with a couple of examples. It seems that you are not interested in responding to that, well that's up to you. Now, if you bother to check how this discussion started in the first place, you'll find it started when you challenged some "misinterpretations" on pages that I have created elsewhere in Wikipedia.--Niohe 22:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, you didn't respond to my point below. Apparently, a lot of translators in mainland China have no problem with the term "Court of Colonial Affairs".--Niohe 19:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, by the way. Look at this link or this one, 仅供参考.--Niohe 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

81.131.82.85 00:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC) I know how to solve all this argument. Bring back Ghengis Khan, then China, Tibet, Mongolia, Russia, Ukraine, both Koreas, Iran, Iraq, Afganistan, India, Pakistan, Bulgaria, all the Central Asian countries and I apologise for any other country left out, will be ruled as one. One ruler, one country, no more fighting. Am I dreaming, or will peoples always be fighting over the flimsiest of excuses?

After all this hot air and BS, can anyone in this discussion come up with a working plan on how to feed the world (not just the Tibetans) and satisfy everyone's desires and demands forever and ever so that we/they can live to the International Declaration of Human Right on the pursuit of happiness? Who's going to pay, or should we all give up our earthly goods and expect some divine hand to give us happiness? 8 Oct 06

List of administrative divisions of Sichuan

I've recently been compiling this list. In particular, I've been trying to research the Tibetan names of the counties in Ngawa and Garze Autonomous Prefectures, both in Tibetan letters and in Wylie. I'm not a Tibetan-speaker, however, so I might have made mistakes, and there are two counties in particular whose Tibetan names I can't find. (Mao County, which is majority-Qiang; and Jiuzhaigou County, which was recently renamed from Nanping County.) Any help would therefore be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance! -- ran (talk) 03:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Cutting the article down

How about we remove a lot of the history to other pages, and keep only a few paragraphs? Most of it doesn't really need to be there as it's mentioned in other articles anyway. Pauric 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Small note on religious freedom in premodern Tibet

There is a lot of hot air on this discussion page, and while I cannot claim to have read it carefully, I did not one claim that went unchallenged which is historically false. Something like the Lamas did not allow the Tibetans religious freedom was claimed. First of the Lamas is a rather blunt discursive category for referring to premodern Tibetan administrative structures. But more importantly, Tibet has long had Muslim and Bön communities which to my knowledge have never been systematically discriminated against. The Tibetan government was in fact far more harsh to Buddhists, such as the Jonang sect in the early 18th century. The government was generally tolerate of christians too, it was only when the jesuits at the order of Rome required their followers to dissist from State sponsored ceremonies that they were expelled. This policy was seen as treasonous by the government and smells much more of political repression than religious intolerance.

The Tibetan government was in fact far more harsh to Buddhists, such as the Jonang sect in the early 18th century. <-- religious freedom? --Sumple (Talk) 06:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'government'?

Allowing people religious freedom means allowing individuals to choose a religion to follow after they have had the chance to find out about different religions, evaluate, and form a balanced view on which religion they wish to follow or not to follow, without social or economic repurcussions. The attitude that 'you are a Tibetan therefore you must be a follower of 'lama Buddhism' does not constitute a freedom of religion, as no choice was offered to the individual to accept or reject; and indeed the lamas never told the Tibetans that other alternative religions or even non-belief of any religion are available to them. The words 'religious indoctrination' rather than religious freedom springs to mind.

There is also the confusion among the people of the West and indeed so it seems, amongst Tibetans themselves that the so called Tibetan religious belief is 'Buddhism'. This is not the case; the actual practise and belief of the Tibetans could be more accurately described as 'Animism' with some aspects of Buddhism added, this is sometimes referred to as 'lama Bhuddism' to distinguish it from true Buddhism. An analogy which a Western audience could understand is the comparison of main stream Christianity with 'Mormonism'. Mormons of course count themselves 'Christians' because they claim they are followers of Christ's teaching, but their version of Christ is unrecognisable from the version of Christ in main stream Christianity. 17 Oct 06.

194.60.106.5 12:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)'First of (all) the Lamas is a rather blunt discursive category for referring to premodern Tibetan administrative structures.'

If you read the current DL's autobiography, you will know that he said the word lama corresponds exactly to the Indian word 'guru'. If you read the Christian Bible, then the Hebrew word 'rabbi' is sometimes left as 'rabbi' or sometimes translated as 'teacher', meaning a teacher of Judaism or Hebrew Law. Thus guru, lama, rabbi have the same meaning- a teacher, and it is a teacher of religion rather than a teacher of say mathematics. I do not know whether a teacher back then needed the equivalent of a teacher's certificate to teach, or simply gave speeches to whoever was willing to listen. A rabbi nowadays is of course a priest in the Jewish religion, and not a school teacher. Thus 'lama' is not a discursive category, but a respectful title of address for a person of religious authority in the Tibetan religious order. 17 Oct 06

Replies on religious freedom

In answer to the questions. By 'government' I meant the the Dga'-ldan Po-brang which ruled (central) Tibet from the civil war in the 17th century until 1951/1959 (an argument for either date could be made). I of course agree that 'lama' (bla-ma) is the accepted Tibetan equivalent of 'guru'. The person I was replying to seemed to think 'the Lamas' was a meaningful way to refer to premodern Tibetan administration. This I have to disagree with. Much of the administration was noble laity, and many Lamas were not involved in the government. The administrative structure, tax policy etc. of the Tibetan government prior to 1959 has been treated very well by Melvyn Goldstein in ppaers which can be downloaded from his webcite.

As for religious freedom, as I have aleady said, Tibet had Bönpo's and Muslims, and for a while christians. These people were tolerated, and not required to become Buddhists. They were all ethnic Tibetans (of course not the christian missonaries but their converts) so the idea that the government assumed or forced all Tibetans to be Buddhist is wrong. Also, Tibet has many sects of Buddhism, the government sect is the Dge lugs school, but the other sects were tolerated and at times functioned largley independent of the government, and only when politics was a factor (like the Jonang) were they surpressed. Premodern Tibet had religious freedom, far more than Tibet under PRC administration does.

No world government to my knowledge presents the religions of the world to its populace and asks them to choose between them. This cannot be what is normally meant by religious freedom. In fact most counties which would be called the hallmark of religious freedom have a state sponsored religion e.g. England, Denmark, Sweden, Germany (with two state religions). Even the US with its touted seperation of Church and State, has the President swear on a bible, has god on the dollar bill, etc. etc.

The claim that Tibetan Buddhism is/was not 'real' Buddhism, can only be addressed once an agreement has been reached about what 'real' Buddhism is. Most Buddhologists think such an exercize is unproductive.

What do you mean by pre-modern Tibet? 17 Oct 06

Before 1951, 18 Oct 2006

As you say that there is such a clearly defined timeline of pre-modern and modern Tibet, it is clear that it is the PRC who brought the region into modernity. Are there any regions which slipped back from modern to pre-modern and its people prospered- take for example Pol Pot who took Cambodia back to Year Zero? Time does not flow backwards, the lama theocracy is rightly confined to the place where it belongs- history. 19 Oct 06

'No world government to my knowledge presents the religions of the world to its populace and asks them to choose between them. This cannot be what is normally meant by religious freedom.'

Exactly, so all governments only pay lip service to 'freedom of religion'. The rule of most countries now are split between the 'administration' and the 'judiciary'. What you have stated is the meaning attached to 'religious freedom' by the administrative process; that is to say, 'well, of course we have religious freedom, we the Adminstration allow this and that church and organisation to be set up, there's plenty of religions you can partake in, so don't stir up any trouble for us and say we don't give you religious freedom, and by the way why don't you join the one the state sponsers?'. The 'judiciary' has to decide what is the law and how should the law interpret 'religious freedom'. Take a recent case in the UK where a Royal Navy serviceman who professed that his religion was The Church of Satan, or Satanism for short. The Court ruled that the Royal Navy has to provide what is necessary for this man to practise his religion of Satanism. This decision was not the intended one by the administration, but it is the correct legal interpretation. This is similar to the US Constitution that they believe all men are created equal. Earlier interpretion by administrations decided that all men did not include Black people, and there were even a Court ruling to say that the Negro was not man. Of course eventually the correct legal interpretation of 'all men' included Black people, but this took many, many years. And it has taken even more years for US society to accept this. In the judicial sense, the lamas never provided religious freedom. Of course from an administrative point of view, this was no worse than any other administration in the world. Tolerance of other religions, as you say, is not the same as religious freedom.

Your claim then boils down to, no Tibetan court defended the rights of a religious minority against the state. I fear given the poor access which scholars have to premodern Tibetan legal documents (do to PRC policy, and the cultural revolution) this claim is admitteldy hard to disprove. That doesn't mean it is true, however. Tibetan courts did at times defend the rights of serfs against their landlords, as the research of Prof. Goldstein mentioned above has shown.

Much of the administration was noble laity, and many Lamas were not involved in the government.

You will find that the members of the 'noble laity' also had the title of lama.

I ask for proof, I have in 10 years of studying Tibetan language and history never seen anyone except a religious figure referred to as a Lama.

Ahem, sorry to ruin your fun guys, but this very long discussion seems to have little direct relevance to the article. --Sumple (Talk) 04:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It is, at least, loosely related to aim of getting the facts straight in the article text, which is more than can be said for most of the discussion on this discussion page.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 05:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)