I don't get it, does when a territory is acquired somehow change the situation? Also, does it matter if indigenous people in Guam were wiped out by the Spanish first? Instead of an act of US imperialism against an indigenous people, it's one against a fellow colonial competitor. Does that somehow change the fact that it is an act of colonialism? Apparently in your mind it does. But you're right on one thing. It was over 100 years ago. It's been around so long and undiscussed that I forgot to recheck my calendar. But why tiptoe around Iraq? What's the population breakdown of Hawaii? Like I said, rather hard to start trouble when you account for such insignificant portion of the population. I love the referendum idea too. Include military personnel along with white emigre and Asian Americans that have settled there, then ask in a referendum if they like independence. They can keep having referendums just for the hell of it. Of course you don't, because you don't bother looking it up. And the reason you don't bother looking it up is because it doesn't conform with your world view. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, China along with Russia borders more countries than any other at 13. To ensure peaceful relations and trade (you know, best interest of China, yada yada yada) with them, China has settled territory with all of them with the noted exception of India. During those issues, China has ceded territory to basically all of them, including countries that have no business getting Chinese territory like Uzbekistan. One exception is Pakistan, as they ceded a portion of Kashmir to China. Another is India, where the PRC is also net positive, but they had to fight a war over it, so the point is moot.
^ LOL, China's invasion of India and occupation of Indian soil = China giving up territorial claims. Bwhahahahahaahaha. Hint: it's not ceding land or territory if you are giving up something you are not in possession of or never had.
Why would China give Beijing to the Mongols? Even with your extremely "tight" definition of Chinese, Beijing was founded by ethnic Hans (therefore Chinese) some 3,500 years ago.
That's actually funny Sammy. Since the Indian Army was northeast of not only the demarcation line, but the McMahon Line, it would mean that the Indians were in Chinese territory by anyone's standards, including their own. Here's an Indian source for you, because I know Chinese sources have to be biased: http://www.rediff.com/news/2002/oct/08max1.htm By that token, it would mean that they were on an invasion of China, an act of war. So it makes your claims of "China's invasion of India" more than a little ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is your pathetic "occupation of Indian soil" argument. The only border in the British offered and China grudgingly accepted was the McCartney-MacDonald Line, which would put the disputed territory under Chinese rule. It wasn't until after the fact when the British had a change of heart. But they again, being an anti-Chinese poster, I wouldn't be surprised that you bark like a dog on behalf of the Indians on the issue. P.S. Much of the territory in which China ceded to those countries, they actually had effective control (including military control) over them.
WOOF WOOF ! I LOVE ME SOME MCMAHON LINE ! I give up. The multitude of posters from the Clutchfans PLA, much like the real PLA - is overwhelming me with volume. Despite their inferior weapons, tactics, and fighting position, the sheer volume of combatants willing to die for the cause has caused me to be overrun. I simply don't have the ability to combat the teeming masses. Plant the flag on me boys, MAY THE RED BANNER FLY!!!!!!!! FRIENDSHIP FIRST, COMPETITION SECOND
That's one helluva argument Sammy. Their "inferior weapons, tactics, and fighting position" are facts, not that you should have to worry about such things. You've got your GI Joes and toy guns.
Good one Sammy. Why believe official figures when you can have SamFisher and the "Free Tibet" crowd pull them out of their collective asses? It's not that 1.2 million Tibetans (or the population of Tibet) didn't get slaughtered in the 50's and 60's, it's the Chinese missing couple of zeros.
Depends. Only 100,000 in Tibet at any given time, no. The number that actually settle (i.e. not including Army Corps, temporary workers) yes. Perhaps you'd like to enlighten us with how many there are.
All total there are probably about 3 million ethnic Hans living in Tibet at any given time - I'm not sure what proportion of that counts the People's Occupation Army or the Longtime Guest Workers. Go to city of Lhasa (where you have never been) and walk around on the streets. Or in fact go to any city, such as Tsetang (where you have never been) Gyantse (where you have never been) or anyplace else - then you tell me that Chinese constitute a mere 1% of the population. Go there with all your man-purse carrying Han tourist buddies. You will have a good time in the KTV joints and the cheap hair salons/whorehouses for soldiers. It will be a fun vacay for you.
SammyFisher is here to show us how to do math. Bravo. Population of Tibet, 2.73 million, but there are 3 million ethnic Hans in Tibet. Good one. City of Lhasa, I've been; Shigatse, I have; Tsetang, I haven't; Gyantse, I haven't. So I'm not gonna comment on Tsetang and Gyantse. But "officially," the population of Lhasa is 80% Tibetan and 17% ethnic Han. I expect the "actual" figure to be a bit higher, but not astronomically higher. And Han population in Shigatse is ignorable, yet you conveniently left out the second largest city in the area. I wonder why. Another thing. Lhasa's population is somewhere around 260,000. Even if you include the entire Lhasa Prefecture, it is still only 460,000. Ethnic Hans are limited to mostly large cities like Lhasa, except Army Coprs (not even all of which is ethnic Han) and the such as railroad workers. I am just fascinated how you came up with 3 million. I know, because you included Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan like your "Free Tibet" allies. In that case why stop there? The combined population of those regions is 120 million+, easily the majority is ethnic Han. Boy, both the CCP and "Free Tibet" groups lie. There aren't "3 million" Hans in "Tibet." There are 115 million+.
This is the clearer version. I would have felt sympathy for them if there was no overacting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TifZyqZvqzE
The fact that even YOU, a good little CBC brainwash-bot, know enough to put quotation marks around the "officially" makes my argument for me. Yes, my friend I am feeling pretty good right now. PRETTY GOOD PRETTY PRETTY GOOD REALLY VERY PRETTY PRETTY GOOD
I am very impressed by the good ole SammyFisher mouth fart. As long as he doesn't fart out a figure, he can never be proven wrong can he?
zhe ge jiao Sam de ren shi bu shi nao dai you dian er wen ti ah? wu liao, bu yong zai he ta chao le. unless you are bored as well.
Archbishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa, March 25, 2008 I wish to express my solidarity with the people of Tibet during this critical time in their history. To my dear friend His Holiness the Dalai Lama, let me say: I stand with you. You define non violence and compassion and goodness. I was in an Easter retreat when the recent tragic events unfolded in Tibet. I learned that China has stated you caused violence. Clearly China does not know you, but they should. I call on China's government to know His Holiness the Dalai Lama, as so many have come to know, during these long decades years in exile. Listen to His Holiness' pleas for restraint and calm and no further violence against this civilian population of monastics and lay people. I urge China to enter into a substantive and meaningful dialogue with this man of peace, the Dalai Lama. China is uniquely positioned to impact and affect our world. Certainly the leaders of China know this or they would not have bid for the Olympics. Killing, imprisonment and torture are not a sport: the innocents must be released and given free and fair trials. I urge my esteemed friend Louise Arbour, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to visit Tibet and be given access to assess, and report to the international community, the events which led to this international outcry for justice. The High Commissioner should be allowed to travel with journalists, and other observers, who may speak truth to power and level the playing field so that, indeed, this episode -- these decades of struggle -- may attain a peaceful resolution. This will help not only Tibet. It will help China. And China, poised to receive the world during the forthcoming Olympic Games needs to make sure the eyes of the world will see that China has changed, that China is willing to be a responsible partner in international global affairs. Finally, China must stop naming, blaming and verbally abusing one whose life has been devoted to non violence, His Holiness the Dalai Lama, a Nobel peace laureate.
From today's Houston Chronicle: 19th century soul behind China's postmodern mask We mustn't be fooled by polished 21st-century veneer By ROBERT KAGAN http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5654662.html China can go for great stretches these days looking like the model of a postmodern, 21st-century power. Visitors to Shanghai see soaring skyscrapers and a booming economy. Conference-goers at Davos and other international confabs see sophisticated Chinese diplomats talking about "win-win" instead of "zero-sum." Western leaders meet their Chinese counterparts and see earnest technocrats trying to avoid the many pitfalls on the path to economic modernization. But occasionally the mask slips, and the other side of China is revealed. For China is also a 19th-century power, filled with nationalist pride, ambitions and resentments; consumed with questions of territorial sovereignty; hanging on repressively to old conquered lands in its interior; and threatening war against a small island country off its coast. It is also an authoritarian dictatorship, albeit of a modern variety. The nature of its rule isn't visible on the streets of Shanghai, where people enjoy a degree of personal freedom as long as they keep their noses out of politics. It is only when someone challenges its authority that the brute power on which the regime ultimately rests shows itself. In 1989, it was students in Tiananmen Square. A few years ago it was the Falun Gong. Today it is Tibetan protesters. Tomorrow it may be protesters in Hong Kong. Someday it may be dissidents on a "reunified" island of Taiwan. This is the aspect of China that does not seem to change, despite our liberal progressive conviction that it must. In the 1990s, China watchers insisted it was only a matter of time before China opened. It was precisely this current generation of technocrats, not schooled in Soviet-style communism, who were supposed to begin reforming the system. Even if they didn't want to reform, the requirement of a liberalizing economy would leave them no choice: The growing Chinese middle class would demand greater political power, or the demands of a globalized economy in the age of the Internet would force China to change in order to compete. Today this all looks like so much wishful thinking — self-interested wishful thinking, to be sure, since, according to the theory, China would get democratic while Western business executives got rich. Now it looks as if the richer a country gets, whether China or Russia, the easier it may be for autocrats to hold on to power. More money keeps the bourgeoisie content and lets the government round up the few discontented who reveal their feelings on the Internet. More money pays for armed forces and internal security forces that can be pointed inward at Tibet and outward at Taiwan. And the lure of more money keeps a commerce-minded world from protesting too loudly when things get rough. The question for observers of Chinese foreign policy is whether the regime's behavior at home has any relevance to the way it conducts itself in the world. Recall that in the 1990s we assumed there was a strong correlation: A more liberal China at home would be a more liberal China abroad, and this would gradually ease tensions and facilitate China's peaceful rise. That was the theory behind the strategy of engagement. Many still argue that the goal of American foreign policy should be, in scholar G. John Ikenberry's words, to "integrate" China into the "liberal international order." But can a determinedly autocratic government really join a liberal international order? Can a nation with a 19th-century soul enter a 21st-century system? Some China watchers imagine the nations of East Asia gradually becoming a kind of European Union-style international entity, with China, presumably, in the role of Germany. But does the German government treat dissent the way China does, and could the European Union exist if it did? China, after all, is not the only country dealing with restless, independence-minded peoples. In Europe, all kinds of subnational movements aspire to greater autonomy or even independence from their national governments, and with less justification than Tibet or Taiwan: the Catalans in Spain, for instance, or the Flemish in Belgium, or even the Scots in the United Kingdom. Yet no war threatens in Barcelona, no troops are sent to Antwerp and no one clears the international press out of Edinburgh. But that is the difference between a 21st-century postmodern mentality and a nation still fighting battles for empire and prestige left over from a distant past. These days, China watchers talk about it becoming a "responsible stakeholder" in the international system. But perhaps we should not expect too much. The interests of the world's autocracies are not the same as those of the democracies. We want to make the world safe for democracy. They want to make the world safe, if not for all autocracies at least for their own. People talk about how pragmatic Chinese rulers are, but like all autocrats what they are most pragmatic about is keeping themselves in power. We may want to keep that in mind as we try to bring them into our liberal international order. Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Washington Post. His latest book, "The Return of History and the End of Dreams," will be published next month.
