oh.. thank you lol.. you make me flush lol

In order to prove that Tibet does not belong to China, you want to shorten the history of China to less than 200 years (begin 1911), Shorter that the USA? Your call yourself "historian"?!  Go and check for the definition of a sovereign country in the UN Charter first!
Oh! I made a mistake in my calculation. Now this is 2008, China is only 194 yeqrs old.! |

[ Last edited by xyliang at 14-7-2008 07:34 ]

If Yuan is not  China because the ruler is Mongolian, the Qing, which is ruled by Manchurian is not by the same token. The fact that they are one of the races of the Chinese family, China is China for the two thousand or more years, uninterupted. Do I make myself clear. So Tibet belong to China from Yuan dynasty till today, period!

[ Last edited by xyliang at 14-7-2008 11:00 ]

Quote:

After the Qing was overthrown, Sun Yat-sen paid a visit to the Ming tombs and said things along the lines of "We have finally restored China to its own rightful rulers, the Hans, and expelled the foreigners." Xenophobia persisted even through the Republic of China era! The embracing of the five ethnicities was part of the modern imperialism, to assert China's sovereignty over the territories where these minorities inhabit.

Interesting, where did you get that information? From what I know, Sun Yat-Sen did much of the opposite, declaring that China is a Union of the Five Races, the Han/Mongols/Manchus/Tibetans/Hui, and this thought prevails over Han-Chauvinist philosophies that were also trying to take a hold, but failed. He even invited each of these ethnic members in their respective areas to draft the new Chinese constitution, including the Tibetans. To do so is to admit that these ethnicities are regarded as Chinese. Believe it or not, one of the strongest stances of the CCP is that the Tibetans actually came to the draft, which solidified themselves as Chinese.

Personally, the Yuan probably shouldn't be considered as a Chinese dynasty, considering that they didn't really consider themselves as such. I have yet to see any evidence of this except for the mentioning of the Mandate of Heaven. Heck, the punishment of an ethnic Mongolian murdering a Han is that the former had to give a couple of donkeys to the family of the victim. No wonder the dynasty lasted so short. However, the Manchus on the other hand is a different story. The Manchu dynasty reigned in history as the first time that China adopted the concept of a nation-state. The Manchus did NOT adopt a Manchurian flag, a Manchurian national anthem, or a Manchurian constitution. All these were instead created as Chinese ones. The Manchus were perhaps one of the first to promote a display of unity throughout the nation, as emperor KangXi himself stated that he was the father of both the Han and the Manchus. If the Manchus saw themselves as Chinese then it'll be a hard nut to crack to prove that they weren't.

Quote:

Xenophobia persisted even through the Republic of China era!

Actually xenophobia was a pretty new concept during the Republic of China. It didn't really persist throughout the centuries, as it didn't exist that long. In fact the very concept of xenophobia was nonexistent, considering there was no concept of nationhood. In imperial China ethnicity usually means squat. Many dynasties such as the Tang, Ming, Han, and Qing readily applied non-Han ethnicities as important functionaries of the empire. In fact, the Tang actually forcibly incorporated many Turks into the mainland. The Qing readily employed Han officials, and the Han is the basis of China's legitimacy in the land of the Uighurs. What did exist in an us vs them replacement of xenophobia during this VERY broad time period is a "us vs barbarians" concept. All people inside the nine regions were the "us", and those outside were the barbarians. However, to define modern China within this concept could cause a lot of problems, as the territory of the nine regions probably changed over time, not to mention modern China would lose/gain huge chunks of land to neigboring nations, which would undoubtedly cause a painstaking amount of paperwork for the politicians.

I'm hoping this will provide an interesting intellectual debate.

[ Last edited by Anthrophobia at 14-7-2008 13:49 ]

Quote:

smearing,  personal attacks ("I guess you didn't even finish your junior high.", "how can he distinguish the wrong and correct")

smearing? anyone with normal education should reason out how ridiculous those claims are.

Quote:

i don't agree wiht you, Historian, when you say it's ok to talkabout the "cruel practice of slavery" in tibetbefore the Chinese army invaded it. It was a retarded, poor, hierarchic society, but certanly not cruel, or at least not as cruel as the chinese were to the tibetan people . As for the slavery, it is a big word for a feudal society - were the peasant sin chinacalled "slaves"? we should rather talk about the young chinese salevs working all day long in factories..

lol, i am laughing so hard ... not even worthy of retorting.

here is something i wrote on this board before and the same principles apply :

Quote:

The data of the first national census for the population in china was published in 1954. The overall population for china (including Tibet) was 601,938,035. Among them, Tibetans were 2,775,622. Back then, Dalai Lama administered Tibet local government reported to the Bureau of Census of the central government in Beijing with the number of 1 millions.  The rest of 2,755,622 lived outside of Tibet (later TAR).

The data of the second census was published in 1964. The overall population was 723,070,269. The Tibetan population was 2,501,174. This time it was done by the central government (Dalai administration had exiled to the in India in 1959)

There is discrepancy of over 250,000 between the data of the first census (2,755,622) and the data of the second census (2,501,174). From the data, they seemed to be quite accurate. Where did those 250,000 people go? Died (any reasons)? Or never existed before?

One thing noticed is that the overall population in China had grown over 122 millions for the 10-year period (1954-1964). It was 1.17% (roughly) of population growth rate overall, which seemed to be normal back then. But instead, Tibetans has 1.12% (roughly) of negative growth rate during that period? And more interestingly, by the 1990, the number of population of Tibetans suddenly jumped up to 4,593,330, that is 1.86% (roughly) of growth rate for Tibetans. What was happening? Tibetan version of sex revolution?

One possible explanation was that there were not 1 millions Tibetans in TAR region (though not officially existed in 1954) reported by the Dalai local administration, far less than 1 millions. So the number of 2,755,622 from the first censure was incredibly inaccurate due to the gross exaggeration of then Dalai local administration.

Now let’s take look at the myth of the “genocide” of 1.2 Tibetans. According to the Tibet government exiles, after the rebellions of 1959, 1.2 millions Tibetans were killed. So if it was true, even with the number 2,755,622 from 1954, 1.5 million survived. But, by the 1964, according to the second census, the Tibetan population was 2,501,174.

Wow, 5-years period, 1.5 millions Tibetans made 1 millions babies? Even with 0% of infant mortality, geees, sex machines? Like hens lay eggs?

Another argument was that there were 6 millions of Tibetans in 1949 (so claimed by the Tibetan government in exile). Then the discrepancy between the number of 2,775,622 (the data from the first census in 1954) and the data of 6 millions (so claimed by the Tibetan government in exiles) should be 3.25 millions. Remember, the so-called Dalai uprising was in 1959, not in 1954. Where did hell those 3.25 millions (actually should be more, with the base of 6 millions, gotta have a bit more growth between 1949 and 1954) Tibetans go? Can’t be killed by the communists, right? Otherwise, Dalai could not have sat with Mao in Beijing for the short lived “honey moon” between them.

With the data from the second census of 2,501,174 (1964), used the based number 6 millions (claimed by the Tibetan government in exile), assume 0% growth rate, then the discrepancy grew even larger. So Chinese government killed 3.5 millions of Tibetans? If so, why Dalai Lama claimed only 1.2 millions killed? Covered up for his enemy?

Dalai had his Nobel Peace prize with that magic number 1.2 millions. Maybe he save that rest of the numbers for two more "Nobel Peace Prize" in the future?

You be the judge!!!

no more debate with that topic, it would be total wasting time.

I believe you made a factual mistake.  Chinese is not just Han, it comprises, Han, Mandarian, Mongol, Tibetan, Hui, Zhuang, etc.  The rulers of Qing are mainly Mandarians, who did not regard themselves Han, but do regard themselves people of Qing, which in Qing Dynasty, was equal to Chinese.

Do you know that Emperor Kang Xi paid a visit to Mount Tai to worship Confucious which made him accepted by ordinary Han intellectuals and people on the street the ruler of China.  

Chinese is never a single blood nation.  Just as current British is a mix blood of many origins.

I believe Historian's view on the history of Tibet is balanced and correct. Besides the fact that Chinese people keep on saying that China is not only Han but includes many other minorities.....blabla.....I would like to add the following: Han Chinese have won, over the Mongols, the Manchu and, more recently, the Tibetans and have become rulers of this big land called China today. How did they win? Very simple: by increasing beyond any immagination the size of their population throughout their history, by transforming those wo were once majorities of their own land into minorities: only 5% of today Inner Mongolia population is actually composed by Mongolians. So Han chinese can easily claim sovereignity over these lands and endorse the idea that actually China includes many races...bla bla. As for Tibet, unfortunately it is just a matter of time: Han population in Lhasa already overpassed the Tibetan one and this trend is going to continue. There was almost no Chinese characters in Tibet back in the 1950's and look today, main street is called Beijing Road....how do you call this? Cultural assimilation? law of nature? I don't know, I just think that more the world is becoming the same (language, culture, etc.) more it is loosing its essence and deserve to be reset..