Why are Tibet, Yunnan & Xinjiang in China, not independent like Korea & Vietnam?

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,437
Khampa always called themselves Bodrig. Bodrig literally means "Tibetan race" while Bodpa means " Tibetan". The reasons Khampas and Amdowas did not call themselves "Bodpa" was that "Bodpa" became synanmous with Utsang people. Even today there are few older khampas and Amdowas who doesnt use Bodpa to describe themselves because to their minds "Bodpa" is associated with Utsang people. In old days Bodrig meant all tibetans while Bodpa only meant Utsang people.
I ask again, what is the primary source? Please cite it. The word rigs simply meant descent and its ancient usage is not the same as the modern concept of Minzu.


Sumpa Khenpo Yeshe Peljor is a monk historian from the 18 century and his division of "Bodqen" Great Tibet and "Bodqung" little Tibet is intresting in the sense that Bodqung was under direct and indirect control of Gelugpas while Bodqen was not. Historiand I find Khempo Bodqen refers to Yarlung empire.
Both are under the indirect or direct control of the Gelukpa by the 18th century. The Bonpo tribes in Kham were forcibly converted to the Gelukpa under the Qing army during the Jinchuan wars. The entire Qing Empire promoted the Gelukpa order.

They are still doing it. Lhasa dialect is still shown as pristine and original while Khamke and amdoke is shown as rustic and backward. Even in local Kham and Amdo television Lhasa is shown as the standard for Tibetan.
Most Amdo people I know today does not like using Lhasa as a common dialect among Tibetans. It is overseas Tibetans which seem to have settled in using Lhasa as the common medium.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,173
Lisbon, Portugal
Maybe you are right and they needed to divide people on ethnic basis for better governence. But we do not need it now. China is quite developed nowadays and infrastructure is good. modernday communications is wonderful. So I dont see any basis on dividing people by ethnicity. and offcially sanctioned too. No body does that in the world now I think.


We should do away with 56 minzu **** right away. No more minorities or majorities. Every body is same and equal. No extra rights or restrictions. You want to call your self Hanzu feel free... you want to call yourself Zangzu feel free... but i do not want any ethnic origin in any identity paper. Zhonguoren is enough.
The United States of America still divide its population according to race...and it's one of the most advanced countries in the world, and so does Singapore or Malaysia.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,173
Lisbon, Portugal
It was a deliberate policy of the Communists and even the KMTs. They wanted clean clear cut divide on who is who and ethnic identity was not seen as a threat but rather an opportunity. They still see it that way but I am not sure of it. I do not like ethnic divisions. we already have many things dividing us ... we dont need one more.

Btw this policy also meant that many people seen as tibetan by the Tibetan people like Moinpas and Lhobas and few other were given their own new ethnic identity and many mongols and other mix ethnic groups in Kham and Gansu were given Tibetan identity. I believe places like Hor and amuna had large numbers of Zhungar and other Oirat people but they spoke Tibetan and thus were given Tibetan Identity.

In Amdo it was even stranger. Many Buddhist Kazakhs became Tibetan while muslims Tibetans became Huis. I know few Amdo Huis who were Tibetans just two generations back.
I think a similar policy was also made in colonial Africa by the European authorities.
 
Jul 2014
1,621
world
I ask again, what is the primary source? Please cite it. The word rigs simply meant descent and its ancient usage is not the same as the modern concept of Minzu.




Both are under the indirect or direct control of the Gelukpa by the 18th century. The Bonpo tribes in Kham were forcibly converted to the Gelukpa under the Qing army during the Jinchuan wars. The entire Qing Empire promoted the Gelukpa order.



Most Amdo people I know today does not like using Lhasa as a common dialect among Tibetans. It is overseas Tibetans which seem to have settled in using Lhasa as the common medium.
The primary source is me as I am a Tibetan Khampa and I speak both Khan and Lhasa dialect. Every Tibetan will know the difference between Bodrig and Bodpa and who is who.

Khan was never fully under control of anyone till the PLA. and Amdo Goloks too.the Bonpo tribes were converted under Buddhist Derge kings than the zhungars. Almost all of Utsang too.QIng came to the game late.

No one outside of lhasa likes to speak Lhasa dialect but now it is the defacto standard Tibetan. Exiles speak totally new version of tibetan. Many people say it's Lhasa dialect but they are wrong. Exile Tibetan is 70 percent Lhasa 20 Kham and 10 percent Amdo mixture roughly. Even the accents are totally different. No exile speaks any pure language anymore. Only senior people do.
 
Jul 2014
1,621
world
The United States of America still divide its population according to race...and it's one of the most advanced countries in the world, and so does Singapore or Malaysia.
I do not think we should take lessons from America in regards to race relations. This concept of race has produced a toxic environment and far right and far left factions that is at bitter odds in USA. I hate racial/ethnic identify as a primary source of identity for that exact reasons.

Malaysia is even worse. Racial discrimination is rife and Chinese and Indians lower on the totem pole compared to ethnic Malays.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,437
The primary source is me as I am a Tibetan Khampa and I speak both Khan and Lhasa dialect. Every Tibetan will know the difference between Bodrig and Bodpa and who is who.
We were talking about the concept of Tibetan ethnicity during the Qing and before, so unless you are born prior to 1912, you are not a primary source and neither are the vast majority of Tibetans alive today. Projecting modern Tibetan ideas of identity to the past is exactly what I am refuting.

Khan was never fully under control of anyone till the PLA. and Amdo Goloks too.the Bonpo tribes were converted under Buddhist Derge kings than the zhungars. Almost all of Utsang too.QIng came to the game late.
Yes, but you were talking about the direct or indirect control of the Gelukpa, not the direct control of Lhasa and many Kham tribes and most Amdo "Tibetans" were in fact of the Gelukpa order even if they were not under the direct jurisdiction of Central Tibet.



No one outside of lhasa likes to speak Lhasa dialect but now it is the defacto standard Tibetan. Exiles speak totally new version of tibetan. Many people say it's Lhasa dialect but they are wrong. Exile Tibetan is 70 percent Lhasa 20 Kham and 10 percent Amdo mixture roughly. Even the accents are totally different. No exile speaks any pure language anymore. Only senior people do.
The point is that a common Tibetan language based around Lhasa is actually used outside of China, but a common Tibetan language does not exist within China itself. Most Amdo Tibetans do not speak Lhasa even if they can understand it.
 
Last edited:

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
6,173
Lisbon, Portugal
I do not think we should take lessons from America in regards to race relations. This concept of race has produced a toxic environment and far right and far left factions that is at bitter odds in USA. I hate racial/ethnic identify as a primary source of identity for that exact reasons.
Racial/ethnic tensions in the US are not really that bad when you compared with other similar ethnically diverse countries throughout the world. In fact I see the USA as a pretty good example of a diverse country that was able to build a prosperous and stable society.

Malaysia is even worse. Racial discrimination is rife and Chinese and Indians lower on the totem pole compared to ethnic Malays.
True, but the case in Singapore is the opposite - another country with highly racial/ethnic division and diversity, but can still function organically and built a prosperous, quasi-democratic and meritocratic society.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,437
I do not think we should take lessons from America in regards to race relations. This concept of race has produced a toxic environment and far right and far left factions that is at bitter odds in USA. I hate racial/ethnic identify as a primary source of identity for that exact reasons.

Malaysia is even worse. Racial discrimination is rife and Chinese and Indians lower on the totem pole compared to ethnic Malays.
Ethnic conflict in China is mostly cultural-economic based, not race based. Race in the sense of phenotype is not an issue as most ethnic groups outside of ethnic Russians and Turkic speaking groups like Uighurs to a lesser extent are hard to distinguish. In fact the problem is exactly the opposite. Ethnic minority culture and identity are often placed under a majority centric narrative, but that is mostly a complaint by intellects, of which most people are not. The primary ethnic issue in China is that ethnic minorities are at a disadvantage in Chinese language training, as their own language are not emphasized and are at a competitive disadvantage. Ethnic minorities who doesn't adopt the values of the mainstream Chinese society are also getting marginalized (such as maintaining their religion and pastoral lifestyle). Minority Nationalism is only of interest to a selected few and is misleadingly represented by overseas independence movements as the primary cause of uprisings against the government.
 
Jul 2014
1,621
world
We were talking about the concept of Tibetan ethnicity during the Qing and before, so unless you are born prior to 1912, you are not a primary source and neither are the vast majority of Tibetans alive today. Projecting modern Tibetan ideas of identity to the past is exactly what I am refuting.



Yes, but you were talking about the direct or indirect control of the Gelukpa, not the direct control of Lhasa and many Kham tribes and most Amdo "Tibetans" were in fact of the Gelukpa order even if they were not under the direct jurisdiction of Central Tibet.




The point is that a common Tibetan language based around Lhasa is actually used outside of China, but a common Tibetan language does not exist within China itself. Most Amdo Tibetans do not speak Lhasa even if they can understand it.

Well your first pont is very easy to answer. All tibetans share a folk/religious history of common origin. Tibetans from Tsang to Qinghai To Golok to Gyalrong have the same origin story of desecnt from an ape and a demoness. Every Tibetan child grows up hearing these tales.

Tibetans also share a common Kingship origin history.

On your other points i will explain later as i have to goto work.
 

heavenlykaghan

Ad Honorem
Mar 2012
4,437
Well your first pont is very easy to answer. All tibetans share a folk/religious history of common origin. Tibetans from Tsang to Qinghai To Golok to Gyalrong have the same origin story of desecnt from an ape and a demoness. Every Tibetan child grows up hearing these tales.
One needs to distinguish common origin mythologies with actual genealogies and ethnic identity. Everyone being descended from an ape is not a prove that they are of the same ethnic group. We have similar stories in Europe where Romans were considered descended from Aeneas or everyone is from Adam and Eve. Even in Tibet, there are several stories of origin that circulates during Qing times, the story of a rock ogress and an ape is only one among many. The more official one is that the kings came from India, yet even there, there are stories of Mongols and even Chinese all descending from India.


Tibetans also share a common Kingship origin history.
As pointed out before, that origin history is not only shared among "Tibetans“, but Mongols as well by the 17th century. In one ritual offering to a fox spirit in the Ulanbaatar Unegen-u sang manuscript, even stated that
"Tibetans, Chinese, Mongols...those three were born from one mother."