Quote:

The Chinese always felt that the rulers of China should always be Hans. In fact, a long-held vision during the Manchu dynasty was that China will eventually be ruled by the Hans and that there will only be Hans in the newly founded nation. They regarded the Manchus as foreign, including Sun Yat-sen and Mao Tse-t'ung, and always dreamed of their nation free of foreign influences. But come the revolution and the founding of Republic of China, the Mongols and the Tibetans declared independence because they didn't want to have anything to do with the Chinese, much less being forced to assimilate. After all, Tibetans had spiritual relations with the Manchus, and once that was gone, they were in no mind to forge a political connection with the Chinese. This was a shocker for the Chinese, as they were losing huge chunks of their land, so they declared all such ethnicities to be part of the Chinese nationality to assert that they were inheriting the entire territory gained by the Manchus. Obviously, they had to change their mindsets or China today might have been only the size of Ming China or even Southern Song China.

Quote:

Kangxi has always been revered as one of the greatest emperors of China. What you said about him is probably true, but I doubt the Chinese accepted the Manchus as one of their own later in their reign. After all, Sun Yat-sen describes Qing dynasty as a tyrannical Manchu rule, making clear that it was a foreign force.

I don't know what you mean by Sun Yat-Sen and Mao Tse Tung having the mindset of a Han China. Didn't I already provide evidence that Sun was the opposite of that? I also asked where you got the information of Sun Yat-Sun quote upon visiting a Ming tomb, I'm eager to hear it, as I like remember historical facts very much. If you want to prove that Sun Yat-Sen was a Han-Chauvanist, you must at least provide quotes on what he said.
As for Mao, he is the LAST person to want a Han chauvanistic China. Such a concept, as according to Communism, is a backward, feudal idea that must be exterminated. But let's say Mao was Han-Chauvanist(which I find pretty incompatible with communism). The declaration of independence of Tibet and Outer Mongolia would still have nothing to do with Mao's attitude, considering during this time Mao was a common citizen like us, not some influential leader of an entire country. These regions would never declare independence due to the views of one random and seemingly average person, a nobody compared to other figures of the time.
And now it boils down to whether the "Chinese accepting the Manchus as their own". As I've stated previously, Sun Yat-Sen marked the Manchus as one of the five main ethnicities of China, so we know that such an occurrence happened at least during the Republican era. However, there are much earlier occurrences. Puyi, the last emperor of China, claimed that they were "invited" into China due to WuSanGui(if you don't know what he did, do a quick google search). The Qing themselves stated that they were in fact avenging the Ming dynasty, which was recently toppled(though not completely) by the rebelling Shun dynasty. This allowed them to gain the Mandate of Heaven. And even before this the Nine Regions had always included at least parts of Manchuria, as far back as the Tang. Li ShiMin's excuse on invading Kogureyo was due to this very reason, Kogureyo's land was within the Nine Regions, and thus All Under Heaven was not under one dynasty.

There is one fallacy to the argument that I need to point out. This is, why should the Manchus need to gain the acceptance of every other Chinese in order for themselves to be considered Chinese in the first place? Do the Han need to gain acceptance of the Manchus in order to be Chinese? If they admit that they themselves are Chinese, then that is enough as it is, else it's just ethnic discrimination.
But the biggest fallacy almost everyone had taken a part in is the idea that the history of a country's territorial boundaries should define the country's modern boundaries. This idea in essence is unworkable, as territories throughout history has changed hands for who knows how many times, and mostly through force at that. Historic research itself has suffered due to this fallacy, as facts became skewed and twisted as both sides try to legitimize their issues. I have to say, this doesn't just apply to Tibet's case, though it is among a more well known example.

[ Last edited by Anthrophobia at 16-7-2008 01:28 ]

@ipfreak
I am confused as to why you refuse to believe that this famine existed. China views the great leap forward as a huge failure, the famine is mentioned in your history classes although no one knows the exact number. The most conservative estimate I can find says 20 million, it is a famine in a country of 600+ million people after all, I don't think that this number is rediculous. I think what can be debated though as to how much of the blame can be put on Mao's policies or droughts that occurred during those years.

Quote:

Original posted by meiguoren at 15-7-2008 12:36
@ipfreak
I am confused as to why you refuse to believe that this famine existed. China views the great leap forward as a huge failure, the famine is mentioned in your history classes although no one  ...

during that period, there ware over 120 millions population growth, the deaths of 20 millions would certainly make that growth impossible. human beings aren't pigs, usually one woman can only have one child in one year or so.

i didn't deny the famine and deaths, but certainly wasn't big number. my parents lived through that period, my relatives lived through that period. their village had no one died of starvation, but rumors were around...

to Kitty,

well, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future China would claim sovereignity in Singapore as well because of that...God, I don't want to see the same faces all around the world.......I believe in diversity of ideas, races, culture.......

Quote:

Original posted by suanlaTibet at 15-7-2008 17:37
to Kitty,

well, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future China would claim sovereignity in Singapore as well because of that...God, I don't want to see the same faces all around the world.......I  ...

well, your dalai lama made claim of "greater tibet", is that the same logic you are using?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Tibet

Please check it.

By the way, nor matter Yuan or Qing dynasty, they were all parts of Chinese history. This land has never been changed.

All the 7 points you had listed never shows that Tibet is independent.

Quote:

All the 7 points you had listed never shows that Tibet is independent.

He is arguing that "none of the Chinese dynasties ruled Tibet". And clearly someone was running Tibet, so either it was a Tibetan government ("independence") or it was someone else...perhaps you'll suggest other candidates.

I'm not very good at English writing as you guys. But in Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynastys the Emperors all used to set a governent in Tibet which took care of Tibetan affairs. In 1911 after the first democratic reverlotion, the centre goverment also set an office in Tibet to take over the jobs from the Qing Dynasty officials. Untill 1951 the new goverment of PRC set up the office in Tibet to take over the jobs the fomer office did. Hope you guys have a little bit patience to check the web site I post on last reply.

中国是一个统一的多民族国家，西藏自古以来就是中国不可分割的一部分 。早在公元前，居住在这里的藏族先民就与生活在中原的汉族有着联系。以后 ，经过漫长的岁月，西藏高原上分散的众多部落逐渐统一，成为现在的藏族。
    吐蕃王朝 公元七世纪初，中国历史进入了一个新的阶段。唐朝（６１８－９０７年）建立起强大的统一政权，结束了中原地区三百多年的混乱分裂局面。与此同时，藏族的民族英雄松赞干布兼并十余个部落和部族，在西藏高原实现统一， 正式建立了吐蕃王朝，定都逻娑（今拉萨）。 松赞干布在位期间，锐意修好唐廷，吸取唐朝的先进生产技术和政治文化 成果。他曾两次派遣大臣赴唐廷求婚，于公元６４１年迎娶了唐太宗的宗女文成公主。松赞干布还从唐朝引入造酒、碾磨、纸墨等生产技术，遣贵族子弟到长安 （今西安）学习诗书，聘汉族文人入蕃代典表疏，与唐朝在政治、经济、文化 等方面保持了极为友好的关系。唐高宗封松赞干布为“附马都尉”、“西海郡 王”，后又晋封为“宾王”。 松赞干布奠定了吐蕃与唐朝二百余年频繁往来的“甥舅亲谊”。

    公元７１０年 ，唐金城公主携带绣花锦缎数万匹，工技书箱多种和一应使用器物入蕃，嫁吐 蕃王赤德祖赞。金城公主入蕃后曾资助于田（今新疆境内）等地佛教僧人入蕃建 寺译经，并向唐朝求得《毛诗》、《礼记》、《左传》、《文选》等典籍。公元８２１年，吐蕃王赤热巴巾三次派员到长安请求会盟。唐穆宗命宰相等官员与吐蕃会盟官员在长安西郊举行了隆重的会盟仪式。次年，唐朝派刘元鼎等人 到吐蕃寻盟，与吐蕃僧相钵阐布和大相尚绮心儿等人结盟于拉萨东郊。此次会盟 时在唐长庆元年（８２２年）和二年（８２３年），史称“长庆会盟”。会盟双方重申 了历史上“和同为一家”的甥舅亲谊，商议今后“社稷如一”。记载这次会盟内 容的石刻“唐蕃会盟碑”共有三块，其中一块立于拉萨大昭寺前。

    西藏地区的分裂割据

    公元８４２年，吐蕃王朝因王室内讧和部族之间、边将之间的混战而分裂瓦解，出现众多互不统属的地方势力。它们各占一方，互相征伐，战争连绵持续了四百余年。十三世纪中叶西藏统一于中国 十三世纪初，蒙古族领袖成吉思汗在中国北部 建立蒙古汗国。１２４７年，萨迦派高僧班智达·贡嘎坚赞同蒙古汗国皇子阔端在 凉州（今甘肃武威）议定了西藏诸部归顺蒙古汗国和接受所规定的地方行政制度 的内容；萨迦地方政权建立。 １２７１年，蒙古汗政权定国号为元，并于１２７９年统 一全中国，建立了统一的中央政权，西藏成为中国元朝中央政府直接治理下的一 个行政区域。 １２６０年，元朝皇帝忽必烈（１２１５－１２９４年）即蒙古汗王位后，封贡嘎坚赞的侄子、萨迦派法王八思巴为国师。１２６４年，忽必烈设释教总制院，命八思巴以国师身份兼领院事。在总制院（后改宣政院）下，设有“宣慰使司都元帅府”，负责处理和管辖现今西藏大部分地区的军政事务。宣慰使司下面辖有管理民政的万户府、千户所。１２６５年，忽必烈封八思巴为大宝法王、帝师，并通过八思巴举荐，任命了总管西藏事务的行政长官和１３个万户府的万户长。１２６８年、１２８７年和１３３４年，元朝中央曾三次派官员在西藏清查户口，还在西藏地区设立了１５个驿站，联成通往大都（今北京）的交通线，推行并确立了西藏地方的“乌拉”（意为徭役、差役）制度。 历代中央政府对西藏的管辖 自十三世纪中叶西藏地区正式归入元朝版图后，中国虽然经历了几代王朝的兴替，多次更换中央政权，但西藏一直处于中央政? 府的管辖之下。十四世纪中叶，萨迦地方政权逐渐衰落。

    １３５４年，以降曲坚赞为首的帕竹噶举派成为西藏大部分地区的统治者，形成了政教合一的帕竹地方政权。在西藏帕竹时期，元中央政府承认了这一事实，封降曲坚赞为大司徒。１３６８年明朝建立后，采取了普遍封赐的政策，对具有政治实力的地方诸教派首领均赐加以“王”、“法王”、“灌顶国师”等名号；王位的继承必须经皇帝批准，遣使册封。这时，达赖喇嘛和班禅喇嘛两大活佛系统所属的格鲁派兴起，三世达赖喇嘛索南嘉措向明廷入贡，获得明朝中央封赐的“朵儿只唱”名号。明朝中央对西藏地方的治理，沿袭了元朝的办法，先后设置乌思藏、朵甘两个 “卫指挥使司”和“俄力思军民元帅府”，分别管理前后藏、昌都和阿里地区的军政事务。其间，帕竹地方政权在西藏部分地区建立了宗本制度，所任各宗的行政首脑，明朝皆授以官职，使其既为宗本（相当于县长）又为中央命官。

    １６４４年清朝取代明朝，对西藏的治理更加严密，使中央政府在西藏行使主 权管辖的施政进一步制度化、法律化。清顺治皇帝数次邀请五世达赖进京，１６５２年，五世达赖进京入见。１６５３年，顺治皇帝颁赐金册、金印，敕封五世达赖，正式确定了达赖喇嘛的封号。１７１３年，康熙皇帝册封五世班禅罗桑益西为“班禅额尔德尼”，正式确定了班禅喇嘛的名号。自此，达赖喇嘛在拉萨统治西藏的大部分地区，班禅额尔德尼在日喀则统治西藏的另一部分地区。

    １７２７年，清朝设立驻藏大臣，代表中央监督西藏地方行政；西藏与四川、云南、青海的区界，就是于此时派员正式勘定的。１７２１年，清朝中央政府在西藏建立噶伦制度；１７５０年，再次调整管理西藏的行政体制，废除郡王制度，建立西藏地方政府（即“噶厦”），规定了驻藏大臣与达赖喇嘛共同掌握西藏事务的体制。１７９３年，清朝政府就驻藏大臣的职权、达赖与班禅及其他大活佛转世、边界军事防务、对外交涉、财政税收、货币铸造与管理，以及寺院的供养和管理等，颁 布了著名的《钦定藏内善后章程》，共二十九条。此后一百余年，二十九条章 程确定的基本原则一直是西藏地方行政体制和法规的规范。

    １９１１年，中国爆发辛亥革命，建立了合汉、满、蒙、回、藏等民族为一体 的共和国——中华民国。中央政府一如元、明、清三朝，实行对西藏地方的治 理。１９１２年中央政府设蒙藏事务局（１９１４年改称蒙藏院），主管西藏地方事务 ，并任命了中央驻藏办事长官。南京国民政府于１９２７年成立，１９２９年设立蒙藏 委员会，主管藏族、蒙古族等少数民族地区行政事宜。１９４０年，国民政府在拉 萨设立蒙藏委员会驻藏办事处，作为中央政府在西藏的常设机构。西藏地方政 府多次选派官员参加国民代表大会。中华民国期间，外患不已，内乱频仍，中央政府孱弱，而达赖喇嘛、班禅额尔德尼继续接受中央政府册封，获得在西藏地方的政治、宗教上的合法地位。现在的十四世达赖喇嘛拉木登珠的任职，就是经由国民政府主席颁令批准的。

    １９４９年，中华人民共和国成立。中央人民政府根据西藏的历史和现实情况，决定采取和平解放的方针。１９５１年５月２３日，中央人民政府和西藏地方政府的代表就西藏和平解放的一系列问题达成协议，签订了《中央人民政府和西藏地方政府关于和平解放西藏办法的协议》（简称“十七条协议”）。“十七条协议”的主要内容是：一方面，中央政府要求西藏地方政府积极协助人民解放军进驻西藏，巩固国防，坚决驱逐帝国主义势力；西藏地区一切涉外事务由中央人民政府统一处理；藏军逐步改编为人民解放军。另一方面，中央人民政府对西藏现行制度及达赖喇嘛的固有地位及职权不予变更；尊重西藏人民的风俗习惯，宗教信仰自由得到保护，西藏的社会改革，采取与西藏领导人员协商解决，在西藏实行民族区域自治等。达赖喇嘛和班禅额尔德尼分别致电中央人民政府主席毛泽东，表示拥护“十七条协议”，决心维护祖国主权的统 一；西藏各阶层僧俗人士和各地藏族领袖也表示坚决支持。从此，西藏历史翻 开了新的一页。

    １９５４年，达赖喇嘛、班禅额尔德尼联袂赴北京参加中华人民共和国第一届全国人民代表大会。在这次会议上，达赖喇嘛当选为全国人民代表大会常务委员会副委员长，班禅额尔德尼当选为全国人民代表大会常务委员会委员。１９５６年，西藏自治区筹备委员会成立，达赖喇嘛就任西藏自治区筹备委员 会主任委员。１９５９年３月，西藏地方政府多数噶伦和上层反动集团全面发动了旨在分裂祖国、维护封建农奴制、反对民主改革的武装叛乱。中央人民政府命令驻西藏的人民解放军坚决平息了叛乱。中央人民政府国务院总理周恩来于同年３月２８日发布命令，宣布解散西藏地方政府，由西藏自治区筹备委员会行使西藏地方政府职权。与此同时，中央人民政府顺应西藏人民的意愿，在西藏进行了民主改革，废除了封建农奴制度，百万农奴和奴隶翻身解放，不再被作为农奴主的个人财产加以买卖、转让、交换、抵债，不再被农奴主强迫劳动，从此获得了人身自由，成为新社会的主人。又经过几年的稳定发展，１９６５年９月正式成立了西藏自治区。

Quote:

But in Yuan, Ming and Qing Dynastys the Emperors all used to set a governent in Tibet which took care of Tibetan affairs.... Hope you guys have a little bit patience to check the web site I post on last reply.

The wikipedia History of Tibet website supports Historian's claim (which I have seen in other literature) that in none of these cases could one say that Han Chinese were ruling Tibet.
Under the Yuan. Mongols ruled China and Tibet.
Under the Ming, Tibet remained an "independent region outside Ming control".
Under the Qing, Manchurians ruled China and had some control over Tibet.

Quote:

Original posted by alberto at 18-7-2008 05:44


The wikipedia History of Tibet website supports Historian's claim (which I have seen in other literature) that in none of these cases could one say that Han Chinese were ruling Tibet.
Under the Y ...

so i am ethnic manchurian because of my parents, so you don't think i am chinese?