[aaerdan]

REGISTER TO REMOVE THIS AD

Anyone here with well-informed, educated Tibetan (as in ethnic Tibetan rather than born in Tibet) friends and/or acquaintances?

Honest question, so if that sentence sounds sarcastic, I apologise.

[guorbatschow]

you are saying that tibet had a working government while omitting that that government was installed by china in the first place @_@

[bhamlaxy]

are we talking about how tibetan culture is fading out because tibet is getting more and more han-chinese settlers? i dont recall any mass murders based on ethnicity.

It is estimated that nearly 1.2 million Tibetans were killed during the "Great Leap Forward" either by direct violence or indirect consequences.

Regardless, the facts still exist. The Tibetans have had their autonomy destroyed, religious leaders persecuted, and have faced extreme pressure due to high amounts of encouraged Chinese immigration, who received unfair socio-economic benefits.

[Moshineko]

Originally Posted by guorbatschow

you are saying that tibet had a working government while omitting that that government was installed by china in the first place @_@

During the 18th century? Were Imperial messengers riding up every week to send missives from the Emperor on how Tibet should be run? China and Japan both have owned Korea several times, how are they any less a Chinese province than Tibet, then?

Germany was unified by the Austrians in WW I, we dont' refer to the other non-Austrian states as having been given their government by the Austrians.

Using something that occured 300 years ago as justification for China to do as it likes now isn't a fair argument. You could use the same argument to justify Spain, France and England taking back most of North America, after all, they set up the governments that were the spark for Eminent Domain. Until the Colonists rebelled, of course. 300 years is plenty of time to develop autonomy as a state, and trying to use the "we were there first" argument isn't going to do any good for anyone, except maybe the Africans, who were the beginning of humanity.

After a while, we need to let history be history, and not an excuse to invade a former province.

[Huaying]

Originally Posted by bhamlaxy

The Tibetans have had their autonomy destroyed, religious leaders persecuted, and have faced extreme pressure due to high amounts of encouraged Chinese immigration, who received unfair socio-economic benefits.

What are you talking about?

According to recent statistics the ethnic Tibetan still consist of 90% of the total Tibet population.
If by "high amounts of encouraged Chinese immigration" you mean "high amount of ethnic Han tourists that kept the local tourism industry alive", then it'll make more sense.

Originally Posted by Moshineko

During the 18th century? Were Imperial messengers riding up every week to send missives from the Emperor on how Tibet should be run? China and Japan both have owned Korea several times, how are they any less a Chinese province than Tibet, then?.

FYI: China didn't touch Korea, they merely aided them against the Japanese invasion. And even the Japanese occupation was too short to account for any real ownership of Korea.

In your argument, you mixed up two things, the "ex-ruling class in Tibet" and the actual "people of Tibet".

Those who promote Tibet independence/ autonomy are often members of the ex-ruling caste that includes some of the monks and ex-slave owners/lords. They consists of only 5% of the Tibetan population prior to 1959, yet they controlled a whooping 90% of the total wealth.
The majority of the Tibetans (i.e. the ex-slave caste) don't want the old way of life back.

That's why you can see a funny pattern in the so called "spread of protest", instead of spreading from "city to city", they actually spread from "temple to temple", in areas outside of Lhasa, all of "protesters" are monks (ex-ruling class in Tibet), you'll hardly find an average Tibetan among them.


In Tibet history, it's a standard practice to have imperial officials from China to administer the local Tibetan government, i.e. a central government vs. provincial government relationship. And that practice can be traced back to 1300's A.D. (more than 700 years of history), which is even earlier than the first establishment of the Tibetan theocracy. (note the first ever Dalai Lama was established in 1391 A.D.)

For those of you are defending the old Tibetan culture... Well, if you believe living your whole life as a slave while having an average lifespan of 35 years is great, then I have nothing to say to you really.

And note that the Han Chinese didn't force the new lifestyle on the Tibetans, they merely showed it, and the majority of the Tibetans accepted it happily. Even now, the average Tibetans are free to practice their traditional religion, and in schools, classes are taught in both Chinese and Tibetan languages.

On top of that, all Tibetan monk classes' living expenses are now covered by the Chinese government, in exchange of freeing the the slaves. The Chinese central government renovates the monk's temples yearly, and they also put more than 200 million USD per year into building schools, hospitals and various other infrastructures in Tibet to improve local living standards.

But to some of those monks, I suppose they get more kicks out of a slavery system. Shame on them.


Here are some videos:


Day of the Riot (you can see some "peace-loving" monks among them, too)





Violent monks caused great casualty on the Chinese police force. Don't police have rights, too?






Order Restored

[bhamlaxy]

What are you talking about?

According to recent statistics the ethnic Tibetan still consist of 90% of the total Tibet population.
If by "high amounts of encouraged Chinese immigration" you mean "high amount of ethnic Han tourists that kept the local tourism industry alive", then it'll make more sense.

10% is still a decent amount of people, and with socio-economic benefits derived from the economic reform in 93' passed by Deng Xiaoping. A few months later, a high level US diplomat visited the region and found the chinese "now dominate new economic activity in Tibet." This has nothing to do with "tourism". This is simple population transfer driven by economic incentives. The new Chinese immigrants dominate business and politics in the region, thus Tibet not being autonomous.