Tiny Tibet feels squeeze from giant neighbors - Page 4




 
--
Tiny Tibet feels squeeze from giant neighbors
 
September 13th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
Tiny Tibet feels squeeze from giant neighbors
There are two statements that are true, but are not worth starting a fight over in regards to China:
1.) Tibet is only "Chinese" by conquest. They only ever were ruled by China by conquest in the ancient and modern past. They possess a culture and historical legacy that is very different and disticnt from traditional Chinese culture. As of the 1950 invasion, Tibet was no more Chinese than Brazil is American. At this point in time, however, I don't think there is a inch of wiggle room left in the Chinese psyche to allow for Tibet to determine its own destiny. The PRC has gone to great lengths to obtain Tibet and then excuse that hostile takeover. She'll never let go of Tibet no matter what. And the statement that Tibet was EVER independent of China comes into direct conflict with the story being told by the Chinese state-controlled media. For that reason, postulating that Tibet should be independent offends China and its people greatly.
2.) Taiwan is an independent country for every intent and purpose, and is only a part of China in name. Calling them an independent country is just statement of the obvious by any definition of "independent country" you care to use.

I don't know why those two things are such sore points with the Chinese people, but ultimately you're going to start a fight if you bring either of them up. On these points, they are just as stubborn as the Japanese are about teaching their children a complete fairy tale for WW2, acknowledging no wrongdoing. The response is instant hostility in all of these cases. Is it all a part of Eastern Culture or something? Regardless, I don't understand it. You'll never be able to carry on a rational discussion about either topic. Why bother?
September 14th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Well...


Well, did the Union allow the independence of the Confederate states? hmm, Mexican California? Why can't you respect China's ownership of Tibet (No mater if was Tang, Song, Yuan, Ming, Ching Dynasties, ROC or PRC) like everyone of you respect the US ownership of California and Confederate states?

Besides, the British version of liberating Tibet from Chinese rule is no different from the Japanese version of liberating Chinese. Oh, by the way, the independence of Tibet by British did look like the independence of Manchu Guo by the Japanese.

Further, China does not want foreign powers to determine its map location and geographic sizes like past results from the Opium War, the 8 Alliances invasion and colonization, and Japanese invasion of WWII.
September 14th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Boobies......Now who said that we liberated Tibet from China, Tibet at that time was an Independent Country and after a the dispute had been sorted was given it's Independence back, there was not one complaint from China over this matter as they also looked upon Tibet as an Independent country.
--
Tiny Tibet feels squeeze from giant neighbors
September 15th, 2005  
godofthunder9010
 
 
One puzzling detail. Tibet was absolutely and completely neutral in WW2. China most definitely wasn't. The Chinese schpeel states that Tibet never was independent, yet they most certainly were acting like an independent country. But ... well ... its a pointless argument IMHO. Nobody ever convinces anybody and everyone just gets all pissy.

Boobies, nobody is even remotely considering invading China for the purpose of liberating Tibet. The whole Tibetan Independence movement is throwing itself upon the tender mercies of the PRC. Nobody is nuts enough to invade, but they are petioning China to let go of Tibet of its own volition. Some revolutionaries have it in their heads to free themselves by force, but that is not an outside country.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobies
Further, China does not want foreign powers to determine its map location and geographic sizes like past results
No doubt, Tibet felt exactly the same way prior to being invaded.
September 16th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Well...


Confederate States and California felt the same as well. If we need to discuss this issue (sovereignties), we may need to look into all countries' pasts and replace all the wrongs with the rights.

Godofthunder, whenI talked about liberating Tibet, I refer the invasion of China controlled Tibet and British helped Declaration of Independence.

LeE, unable to defend or did little of helping resist does not mean China did not do anything. The "did not do anything" was caused by Qing court's inability to lead, support both politically and financially for the fight against the British invasion. China was declining in a rapid speed with self-boasts and isolation.

To understand "the did not do anything", you may need to understand the ways how Chinese culture, especially Confuciousm responded to external forces. Chinese politics believed and practiced "Big matter adjust to small. Small matters resolve to none". In Tibet's case, Qing was not able to resolve by force nor negotiation. And consequently, Qing lost control of Tibet.
September 16th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
At the turn of 20 th Century there were no Chinese troops in Tibet, there were no Chinese Officials, the whole place was run by the Dali Lama and the monks, so just when did it become a province of China.
September 17th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: Well...


LeE, China felt the invasion of British was uncall for, whatever lost during the time, China had the right to reclaim.
September 17th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Boobies......just how many years were the British in Tibet, and what did they take from Tibet, or what land did they confiscate.
September 18th, 2005  
Boobies
 
 

Topic: heheheh...


British was on a rampage of colonization and political manifestation. Didn't British colonized lot of places during the time? Didn't British intentionally poison China with Opium? Didn't British invade China to force China to trade (Treaty of Nanking?). Didn't British force the Chinese to legalize Opium and force the propagation of Christianity in all Chinese region after defeating the CHinese in the Second Opium war?

Do you support Britain's occupation of other nations at that time? If you say no. Then how can you conclude what British did to Tibet and its relationship with China were justified at that time?

Oh, British was clearly the winner, so she had the right to claim who is or isn't independent and mess around other countries's law and infrastructure?
September 18th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Yes while standing here in the 21st Century I have to agree that the Opium Wars that took place in the 19th Century were totally wrong. The British Invasion of Tibet was not about territory it was about making the Government of Tibet take responsibility for their Brigands who were raiding into India. As China had nothing to do with Tibet at this time and there is very little evidence that they ever had taken any interest in Tibet we had to sort put this problem, once this problem had been sorted then we left. We took nothing from the Tibet except an agreement with the Dali Lama, the whole thing could be compared really with the Allies involvement in Iraq, you sort out the problem then you leave, but in Tibet's case it did no take so long