I took a look at some figures of Tibetan population figures and the figures that I had been told was that Tibets population in 1950 was 6 million and that by the 1970's that more than 1 million Tibetans have died. Doing an Internet search though I find figures all over the place including the ones you cite. One problem though seems to be is that there really wasn't a good census done at the time. Following Wikipedia which cites the numbers you cite if Tibet's population was 8 million in 1737 and 1.2 million in 1950 then over the course of 213 years about 31,000 Tibetans died. Very bad indeed. According to Wikipedia though the PRC conducted a census in 1953 that showed a population of 2.8 million which would cast doubt on the 1.2 million figure since its practically impossible Tibet's population would've increased by 1.6 million in 3 million. Further though the PRC conducted a census in 1964 that showed Tibet's population at 2.5 million. So over the decade about 30,000 Tibetans died each year. Not much better than Tibet under feudal rule. Note too that I said that it was undeniable under the GLF/CR that I said Tibetans suffered more, not all of PRC rule that you cite. Is you recall reading my other posts I've said that Tibet is a lot better off materially.(My point though hasn't been materially well being but self-determination.)Taking these figures I will admit that I was mistaken but you can hardly say that things were better for Tibetans since even the PRC's own figures show a decline of 300,000 during that time period. In regard to the figures in general from looking at these I don't know what to make up of them. I won't, and if you read my posts have never said the PRC or other Chinese are lying, you're putting words in my mouth, but given the wide disparity of figures along with the lack of reputable historical census data I would be skeptical of all of these figures whether from the PRC or Tibetan nationalists. And you don't believe that the PRC has an agenda? I'm willing to say that the statistics I've seen may be very skewed but given the disparity and the fact that the PRC's own figures contradict themselves, 1.2 million in 1950 and 2.8 million in 1953, that I would take the PRC's figures with a dose of skepticism too. Again if you read my posts I say the China claim has some merit and that Tibet is material better off. How is that saying anything to piss the CCP off when I agree with some of their main points? You're quick to accuse other's of being biased yet I would suggest you consider your own before you throw accusations like that. I will forgive you for your lack of knowledge of US history but there were slave revolts in the US with the most notable being John Brown at Harpers Ferry. Also the Underground Railroad helped thousands of slaves escaped. Again to my knowledge there wasn't a serf's revolt in Tibet or an underground railroad of Tibetans escaping out of Tibet until the PRC took over. Anyway this is a faulty comparison. The Southern states ratified the US Constitution and were on record as being part of the US and were, in a state of rebellion. (even there its not so clear if legally couldn't seced but that's for another thread) Tibet never ratified a treaty or were part of the PRC until PLA troops were already in Tibet. Talking about saying stuff with a straight face the PLA entered Tibet in 1950 and the treaty wasn't signed until months later in May of 1951. Unlike you're claim that the treaty was signed before the PLA entered. From Wikipedia: In 1950 the People's Liberation Army entered western Kham (Khams) and Ü-Tsang (Dbu-gtsang) with little resistance. In May 1951 a treaty signed by representatives of the Dalai Lama and local government, provided for Chinese military occupation and rule by a joint Chinese-Tibetan authority. The PRC claim to Tibet's legitimacy has some serious flaws because while Tibet at times was part of China it never was part of the PRC or ruled by the CCCP government or even the KMT government. Treaties recognizing Chinese sovereignity were made to the Qing government which no longer existed. There's a even greater problem though the PRC demanding Qing dynasty treaties be recognized is that many Qing dynasty treaties were signed with Japan, England and other colonial powers that were greatly detrimental to China. The legal argument of China's rule of Tibet as I said isn't without merit but one that is also very murky and opens up a can of worms regarding all sorts of treaties and IMO its only a selective reading of history to claim that it is fool proof. One last thought on this. Korea historically has been ruled by China so in that case then shouldn't China also be able to claim Korea as part of China? Especially considering that the Korean language and culture are closer to Chinese than Tibet. For that matter Japan ruled Manchuria and the Mongols ruled all of China so if we're citing historical ownership then yes China can claim ownership of Tibet but Japan can of Manchuria, Mongolia of all of China and all three of those countries of North and South Korea. You're partially correct but our state elections give us a fairly high degree of autonomy for our states to decide things on their own. Further you may not understand the US system but the US Constitution actually does give Americans the ability to decide if parts of the country should be allowed to secede. Without gong into the intricasies the most obvious is in the Ammendment process. Under that an Ammendment could be passed to allow states to voluntarily secede. Further the US could and has given away territory without the Ammendment process. Sam brought up the example of Puerto Rico where the Puerto Ricans have been allowed to vote on whether they want to remain US territory but the US after the Spanish American War controlled both the Phillipines and Cuba and voluntarily let them go.
What makes it an invasion is that the PLA army rolled in, killed a bunch of people, and has occupied the territory since. Honestly, look it up in the dictionary. This justification doesn't even get off the ground. As I said before - simply because the world turned it's back on something does not make it right. The world recently turned it's back on genocide in Darfur without doing anything about it. That does not make it right.. What the hell are you even talking about? I didn't insult anybody. Again - hypersensitivity raises it head.
Sishir, I never said PRC doesn't have an agenda. Sure they have one, rightfully so as everyone else. Does that make everything they said regarding Tibet was false and lie? I don't think so. Even though you admitted that both sites are biased, and data from both sides cannot be fully taken as the only truth, you still CHOSE to take words from slave owner exils over ones from other Chinese. Did they provide more evidence? I wasn't given that impression. You and other posters didn't show such evidence either. I am wondering what makes you decide to totally stand at another side of the story. Chinese government did lots of things NOT in its people's best interest. Be it Qing dynasty, Nationalists, or Communists. CCP did lots of things against the will of average Chinese people, and my family was affected as well. But that, doesn't give me any rationale to dismiss everything they say, or against everything they do. Although I am no longer a PRC citizen, I still feel I am a Chinese. I have lots of friends from many places, and besides talking about weather, sports, cars, and women, we also talk about religion, gay rights and politics. Lots of people don't know much of the history about China, about Taiwan, about Tibet, about Sino-Japan wars. They like to listen to my side of the story as well, because they like to have information from different sources. When I talk to people from Taiwan and Hong Kong, we had lots of indifferences, but when it comes to Tibet, we share the same view that is, it's UNDENIABLE that Tibet is part of China. Republic of China is the legal successor of Qing Dynasty, and the People's Republic of China is the legal successor of ROC. Therefore, ROC inherited all the land of Qing, including Tibet, and so did PRC. China is not just a name, it consists of its people and land. When you say that Tibet was never ruled by PRC before, you are right. PRC did NOT exist before 10/1/1949. Are you saying since PRC never controlled Beijing, Shanghai and any other province, city, or village before, hence PRC doesn't have right over any land? If yes, then UN must be absolutely wrong, so are all the other democratic countries including US. If the answer is NO, they do control Beijing and Shanghai, then why is Tibet so different? Just because some former slave owner exils said so? Speaking of treaties detrimental to China, I don't see outcries from democratical countries about Hong Kong's semi-colonization. Of course I am biased. You asked me to look at myself before I accuse anyone else. I don't think that's any accusation. To me, everyone is biased, nobody can be absolutely objective. We are all humans. Just like I admitted in my first reply to you that I am a hyprocrate. But that doesn't mean everything I said was wrong. Lots of people here misunderstood some Chinese posters here. Defendign certain policies of PRC government doesn't mean they don't want free election and broader democracy, and it doesn't mean that they are defending communists. It's defending Chinese interest and Chinese position as a ethnic Chinese, as simple as that. "You are either with us or against us" was CCP doctorine 30, 40 years ago, which Chinese people are working hard to abandon.
Honestly, if that's al you can muster, you have lost the argument. Well, an army rolled into its own territory is not invasion in any dictionary I know. You can call it other things, but... Then I won't intend to change your "religious" belief. Kind of oxyimoran isn't it? Sorry, I can't help you there if you don't see it.
michecon, for the 100th time - I have no idea why the concept of euphemism is so important to you. In plain english: invasion n. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer. Ok - an armed force? Check, 40,000 PLA troops Entrance into a territory? Check, they entered Tibet in 1950 Conquest? Check, they defeated Tibetan forces, instituted Chinese control, and to this day have exercised dominion and control over Tibet (currently under martial law) That's an invasion, I'm not trying to insult your linguistic skills - but honestly I fail to see how it's not. You might claim it was a 'justifiable' invasion (which I strongly disagree with) - but it was an invasion, nonetheless, in any context. What's the insult, that certain people are being hypersensitive? They are. That I like to eat Chongqing spicy chicken? I do. Tell me what the problem is. I'm an oxymoron. The only people I mean to insult are the fools who like to tell me how racist I am, for airing my grievances about foreign policy (and applying the common defiinition of invasion) or saying that Yao needs to be more aggressive on the offensive glass. That kind of idiocy gets no props from me.
Armed force, CHECK, I agree. But territoy, CHECK? Depends on your definition of territory, if you mean a district, you can check that. It means when US naval fleet returns to Norfolk base would qualify as invasion as well, according to your logic. Armed force - US naval fleet, check Territory - Norfolk, check You can play this game of word all day long. However, if you say territory, by indicating "the geographical area under the jurisdiction of a sovereign state". You are correct as well, in both PLA and US naval cases. It shows you either misunderstood the definition you quote or the definition itself is not explicit enough, maybe it should add "foreign". Norfolk is an area under jurisdiction of a sovereign state - US, and Tibet is an area under jurisdiction of a sovereign state - first ROC and PRC. To conquer? Definitely NOT. One doesn't need conquer own territory. Speaking of people call you racist, you better back it up with a DIRECT quote. You brought it up 6, 7 times here in this thread, but NOBODY in this thread called you a RACIST. You kept bringing it up in other threads, and played innocent by saying you got called racist for simply saying Yao was not aggressive enough. Again, you better back yourself up, don't just twist the facts and events, as you do in this thread. You firmly believe that Tibet should be independent, that's your opinion. I never intend to change your mind on that. The sole reason I am debating you here, is simply because I feel that already too many false information were repeated again and again. I want to try to give people some information who are interest in another side of the story, different from those from ex-slave owner exils. Playing victim game by falsely claiming that you were labelled racist and Chinese posters being inferior and hypersensitive, doesn't win you any debate. If you need to resort to that kind of tactic, you already lost.
Armed force - US naval fleet, check Territory - Norfolk, check [/quote] You missed a key part of the definiton - "TO CONQUER". US Navy in Norfolk Armed Force - US Navy, check Territory - Norfolk, check Conquest - NO CHECK - Therefore the US Navy does not invade Norfolk in that sense whenever it retruns to Norfolk. Let's take a similar example - say the PLA in 2006 sends another 100,000 more men to its bases in Tibet - is that an invasion? - No Armed Force - PLA, check Territory - Tibet, check Conquest- No check I doubt that - while nobody said exactly "you're a racist", wnes, in particular, has accused me of being afraid of the "Yellow perils" and basically being a Chinese-hater in general. It's true that I dislkie the CCP and its policies, just like I dislike my own governemnt and its policies at times - but that doesn't mean I hate China or Chinese. I don't even know if I believe that it should declare independence today - it's really too late at this point- more accurate to say Tibet SHOULD HAVE BEEN independent and that the slow death of Tibetan culture is a direct consequence of them not being so - which is tragic in my opinion. Like I said - I don't really care if they call me a racist - but it devalues the debate when it happens.
I just want to see an American Indian ruling king. You think Texans dont already consider Texas to be its own country?
Very Nice playing of words. To conquer is to aquire something you don't have the right to. But I'm not linguist, if you have to say China invaded a part of China, or US Republican army invaded US South Union, I'll leave you at that. Very nice twist again. You mean you didn't insult a group of poster here by using "Chinese inferiority/hypersensitivity complex", especially when I did nothing to provoke that? Or you mean they/we/Chinese do have "inferiority/hypersensitivity complex"? In that case, aren't you a bit oversensitive over being called the thing you've being called.
I'm not playing with words - I'm using the common definition of invasion. The Union army DID invade the South. Just like the Confderate army invaded the North. An invasion is an invasion is an invasion. Perhaps I am being oversensitive. What I mean is people who accuse me of hating all of China/Chinese simply for disagreeing with the actions of its government - it's the same as being called an America hater for criticizing Bush - it's idiotic.
I do think the number of Tibetans that welcome the current regime are the minority. And I do believe the words of His Holiness stating many times that he was ready to make major changes in Tibet despite the hardships of changing the status quo. He did recognize that the state of Tibet was sad and changes had to be made. I believe him much more than I do the PRC. Their added violence along with robbing people of their faith etc. was not a solution.
Sishir, you seem like a reasonable poster, so here's my two cents, since I've enter this fray (no mus sling though). What's the purpose of all those numbers? If it is to prove Tibetans have suffered during the GLF/CR, I agree. And I don't need those murky numbers to tell me that. If it is to prove Tibetans have definitely suffered more during that period than in the serf system, I don't know --trustworthy numbers or not. You can't compare some 14 years to roughly 500 years. There simply is no comparison. If you were to show the living condition of Tibetans under CCP, then why stop at 1964? Your post here doesn't advance your argument, rather it lends support to the other side actually. First of all, From the same wikipedia you cite: "Tibet itself acknowledged Chinese sovereignty by sending delegates to the Drafting Committee for a new constitution of the Republic of China in 1925; to the National Assembly of the Republic of China in 1931; to the fourth National Congress of the Kuomintang in 1931; to a National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1946; and to another National Assembly for drafting a new Chinese constitution in 1948." So it's not all vacumn in these years like some would like you to believe. The ROC government had an agency called "Comission for Mogolia and Tibet Affairs", and presided over the reincarcination of the 14th DalaiLamma. There have been attemps however to make Tibet independant or under British control. Like Simla Convention, or the doomed "minister of foreign affairs", but all failed. From the same wikipedia again "During the convention, the British tried to divide Tibet into Inner and Outer Tibet. When negotiations broke down over the specific boundary between Inner and Outer, the British demanded instead to advance their line of control, enabling them to annex 90,000 square kilometers of traditional Tibetan territory in southern Tibet, which corresponds to most of the modern Indian state of Arunachal Pradesh, while recognizing Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and Tibetan autonomy. Tibetan representatives secretly signed under British pressure; however, the representative of Chinese central government declared that the secretive annexation of territory was not acceptable." So Tibet during 1911-1950 can best described as "a highly autonomous region under Chinese sovereignty, who had tried to gain independence under foreign influence but failed." Do you agree? Second, "Treaties recognizing Chinese sovereignity were made to the Qing government.." that actually makes PRC de jure succecor of sovereignty over Tibet. You are not telling me here, the rights and obligations are all obsolete by the change of government, do you? Qing dynasty treaties signed with Japan, England and other colonial powers were subsequently nullified, rectified, or GASP, carried out. A good example, Hongkong, which was leased for 99 years to British under a Qing treaty, and returned to China based on that exact treaty in 1997. Please tell me which treaty that haven't been nullified that would put China's sovereignty in jarpoedy? No, Japan can not claim Manchuria (there's never a treaty like that), or Qingdao(there was, but nullified) for that matter. In Tibet's case, there wasn't a subsequet treaty to recognise Tibet's independent status. With that being said, if you "embrace a view that can be called Neo-Isolationism and a statists view regarding self-determination of countries. Under that I don't deny that regimes do terrible things to their own people but am exceedingly leery of the idea that any single other country should unilaterally decide what is best for another country and invade it on that basis." I have no argument against it. It is your view. But next time you excise that view, don't be so sure Tibet was not a part of China.
Oh, Sam, we finally agree on something, toast. So China invaded a part of China, frankly, I don't care much that's common definition or your definition. I'm just trying to help. To me, calling a whole ethnic group having "inferiority/hypersensitivity complex" is as idiotic as "being called an America hater for criticizing Bush", or accusing of "hating all of China/Chinese simply for disagreeing with the actions of its government". agree? Plus it doesn't help you win an argument.
I didn't say a whole ethnic group - I said that that applied to certain posters on this message board.
Good to hear. However, when you use the phrase " Chinese inferiority/hypersensitivity complex" in a post to someone who didn't provoke it, it certainly gives wrong impressions. Cheers.
I often wonder what gives lawyers like you a bad rep. You surely offer enough glimpse to the myth. Apparently logic and reasoning aren't your forte, as you were unable to comprehend the difference between logical "AND" (expressed) and "OR" (none implied) in my original statement, worse yet, you continued to litter in your posts irrelevant nonsenses and inconsequential anecdotes. You couldn't even argue for the sake of argument. Did PRC rob/loot Vietnam in their armed conflict in 1979? Did PRC continue its occupancy of the territories captured during the war after it completed its military campaign? Didn't you start your side kick of the China-Vietnam conflict in 1979 with a "Putting Tibet aside" preamble? If so, then how did Tibet come into play? BTW, to entertain your on again off again schizophrenia, just as US doesn't loot itself with wild salmon harvesting in Alaska, China doesn't commit grand larceny with its own natural resource exploration in Tibet (although a case can be made against PRC's improper management of environment and ecosystem in Tibet -- a big part of the reason being the overzealous tourism development in that part of region to cater for visitors like you, that's for an entirely new topic). One history lesson tells me that Vietnamese local militia was a good part of the resistance force that prevented a heavily equipped major superpower from achieving its global policing mission for almost a decade not long before 1979. Another piece of history is that PRC only dispatched second-line troops in the China-Vietnam conflict while amassing China's best 10 tank divisions, 3 airborne divisions, 20 artillery divisions, 15 railway engineers and constructions divisions, and 11 signal regiments near the China-Soviet border in preparation for any possible Soviet military action. One interesting aspect about the one-month long China-Vietnam conflict was that US was actually China's strategic ally at the time. Didn't you utter something in an earlier post which pretty much resembled a 2002 Trent Lott remark in which he lamented that his Mississippi and the rest of the United States would have been better off, if the (then) known racist Senate Strom Thurmond had been elected US President in 1948? Oh, why is it a good thing that His/Her Majesty's Emprire ended? Didn't you sorta contradict yourself? Maybe the Brits could have distributed the Bibles throughout the Tibetan Plateau while at the same time importing massive amount of opium, just as they did to China in a good part of Qing Dynasty in the 1800s? Shall I bring up the most "humanitarian" deeds done to the Chinese by Brits in the crackdown of the Boxer Uprising? Mind you, Sammy, even Tibet.org isn't very pleased with your much-heralded British invasion of Tibet, as they described Younghusband Mission as "one of the most shameful acts of British imperial history", "repugnant," "for essentially selfish motives," "tried hard to please his master." To this date, neither the British Government nor the Queen has officially apologized to the Tibetan-Chinese for the British invasion of Tibet 100 years ago, which resulted in the deaths of more than 3,000 Tibetans. You are at liberty of believing everything coming out of Younghusband's mouth, however, that particular view of Foster Stockwell is also shared by Tibet.org -- your ally. It doesn't matter how hard you are trying to diffuse Chinese viewers/posters' negative opinion of you with your typical SamFisher excuses, your thinly disguised grudge against China/Chinese has been self-evident. Take, for example, the China Protest (over Japan's textbook revision) thread. You didn't make a fuss about Japan's atrocity against the Chinese in the WWII, instead, your vested interest only focused on China's past and future dealings with various third parties and China's own human rights problems, which were completely irrelevant to the thread, as if the Chinese deserved their suffering in the Rape of Nanjing. Sishir Chang and other non-Mainland Chinese posters pointed to you that regardless of their different background and upbringing, the Chinese were universally and spontaneously opposed to Japan's whitewash of its criminal past, demonstrating the outrages over Japan's history textbook revision were not orchestrated by CCP, at all. What did you do? You disappeared. In this thread, while profusely expressing your righteous indignation over the mistreatment of Tibetans by the Han-Chinese, you conspicuously ignored the huge Tibetan casulties as a result of military intrusion by Younghusband-led British expedition forces, whom even the exile Tibetans were incensed at. Even in GARM you couldn't resist your uninhibited China bashing. Topic - Operation Yao Ming? SamFisher: Free Tibet! Topic: China planned the birth of Yao? SamFisher: hmm, maybe not. But one thing is for sure, Chinese sporting machine cheats, blah blah blah. Now back to this Tibet thread, more ethnic stereotype BS from you : Now tell me Sam, Fuzzy Zoller did not mean to be derogatory to Tiger Woods, whose father is an African American, with his "fried chicken" and "collard greens" joke. Like I said, the pattern is too obvious to be ignored. I'll let others draw their own conclusions.
Wnes - you're showing you're true colors as a paranoid with a chip on his shoulder. I've orderded Chongqing Spicy Chicken (under the special Chongqing menu) at Grand Sichuan Eastern on Second Avenue between 55th and 56th numerous times. I f-ing love it, along with double cooked pork. GSE on 2nd Ave is bar none the next best sichuan I've ever had while not in Chengdu or Chongqing. http://travel2.nytimes.com/top/feat...ity/restaurant_details.html?vid=1052816414619 GSE is one of the top 100 restaus in NYC according to New York Magazine - and it should be. So - unless you claim to know better than me what I eat and what I don't -you're just blindly playing the race card. So you and MFW4569 or whatever he is can have a little pow wow and lick your wounds - I've made my case and I don't think there's anything else to be said.
Sam, it's obvious you are racist because you got mixed up using "you're" when it should have been "your."
wnes, does SamFisher owe you money? Cause that was brutal. What's interesting is the population disparity between tiny Nepal and gianormous Tibet. Same region. Nepal has 28 million people. Tibet has 3 million. What happened there?
