Why is China scared of Tibet?

Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
Not sure what you mean by "bucketing people on one side of the discussion to banned". If someone is banned, there is a large amount of evidence for this, if you disagree, go speak to a mod.

Despite what you assert, the essence of my posts are clear and your responses are simply proving me correct, simple tropes and distractions. Don't try to put yourself forward as someone who understands the "essence" of my post, you just need to respond to them.






Wouldn't it be nice if someone who believed in a government or ideology could actually defend it head-on, rather than tropes and distractions...
Wow... what a rant.

This was your post you're chasing me for a reply to:

Don't confuse him/her. Simple tropes and deflections are all we can hope for from some posters (those that aren't banned at least!)

And what do you mean by "his kind"?
Pro-separatists/anti-China end of the spectrum.
 

Baldtastic

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,448
Londinium
Wow... what a rant.

This was your post you're chasing me for a reply to:

Don't confuse him/her. Simple tropes and deflections are all we can hope for from some posters (those that aren't banned at least!)
Dismissing a post as a rant is not a counter argument - it highlights the lack of counter argument, or even the attempt to do so, and is yet another simple trope – these are apparently second nature to those defending in the indefensible

Don’t try to subvert my posts, this is what I’d like a response to:

Are you not shocked at the amount of similarities from these bitter enemies? Thankfully, I've not fallen for either of these outdated Western ideologies, (Communism and Fascism) but can understand how they appeal, to some.

Dismissing something as a "grade school argument" has done nothing to counter the legitimate points made. We are all exactly where we were before you made that post; Communists and Nazis have more similarities than differences.
---

Pro-separatists/anti-China end of the spectrum.
LOL is this how criticism of the PRC/CCP is dismissed within your circle of friends? You’ll need to try harder in open forums, where a coherent counter argument should be provided. There have been many discussion topics centering on the PRC, all counter arguments have been insults (hence the banned members) or just tropes, distractions, red herrings.

Do you not think that the forum recognizes this in the responses?
Have you considered how the lack of counter points just highlights the failures of the CCP or PRC system, as those proponents don’t even attempt to engage in a rational debate.[/QUOTE]
 
Oct 2015
1,133
India
Looking back he lived in Sichuan which was claimed by Lhasa government, and today much of it is still claimed by the Dalai Lama as a part of Tibet.

I lost track of the number of times he said he was Tibetan, I don't know how anything you say can change that.

And even if you don't believe him about his background, it's not that hard to find out that China practiced a giant lump of affirmative action for minority ethnic groups. I already knew that Tibetans weren't legally bound by the one child policy, I didn't know how the new two child policy affected them until Songtsen told me, because I left before that policy became inforce. Because people are only allowed to classify under one ethnic group in China, those of mixed heritage would almost always choose to be the minority in order to take advantage of the perks of affirmative action. As someone who lived years in China I can testify to this. I just didn't know the specifics about minority housing and subsidies provided by the government. And it's not that hard to find the Chinese TV channels on youtube which specifically uses the Tibetan language for a Tibetan audience, that is if you know which channels you're looking for.



From the "Background Paper on the Situation of the Tibetan Population, commissioned by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Protection Information Section":
Overall, what follows from the above is that there is very little permanent Han migration into the TAR itself, apart from Lhasa. There was some state-driven Han migration of cadres into Tibet and other Tibetan areas until the 1980s, and a great deal of short-term Han migration to Lhasa in the 1990s, most of it voluntary and aimed at economic profit. Tibetans remain in the majority in most of the Tibetan areas outside of Tibet, if one accepts the Chinese definition of what constitutes the Tibetan areas and that the number of Han immigrants there actually fell in the 1990s. If we accept the TGIE’s calim for the territories that constitute Tibet then the number of Han rises greatly, because it includes the eastern segment of Qinghai, where most of the province’s people live. Overall, however, it is difficult to accept the Tibetan diaspora claims [that] the PRC has attempted to dilute the Tibetan nation through Han immigration to the extent of it amount to “cultural genocide”” - United Nations Commissioner for Refugees Background Paper on the Situation of the Tibetan Population, by Professor Colin P. Mackerras

“Yet foreign supporters of the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile community commonly report that the PRC government has been transferring huge numbers of Han Chinese migrants into Tibet, numerically swamping the Tibetans there, claims that are widely believed internationally. For example, one such analysis reports that Han Chinese have become the “New Majority” in Tibet through in-migration, which the Dalai Lama has referred to as “demographic aggression” (Tibet Support Group UK 1995: 1)

How is this claim supported? First, these observers define “Tibet” as “historic Tibet”, that is, the vast area ruled by the Tibetan Tubo dynasty in the eighth century C.E., or “ethnographic Tibet”, meaning all those areas where there are concentrations of Tibetans in villages, towns, or cities. However, using such a definition of Tibet ignores the fact that for centuries, Tibetans in China outside of what is now the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR) have been living as part of Qinghai, Gansu, Sichuan, and Yunnan provinces. Han Chinese were moving into these areas for centuries or at least decades before the founding of the PRC in 1949, by the constituting over 50 percent of the population in some Sichuan and Qinghai counties where Tibetans live. This process of Han in-migration has indeed continued in Qinghai and some other Tibetan-inhabited areas outside the TAR, but the “Tibet” that was ruled from Lhasa during China’s Nationalist period 1912-1949 is the TAR only, and this Tibet is far from being swamped with Han immigrants.
You have not given the original reference to the UN Report or its date (it may be very old). Effectively it can be summarized as under:

[1] Tibet as defined by TGIE mean the wider area in which ethnic Tibetan people are settled & are in majority. Here there is significant state-driven migration of Hans Chinese. Still ethnic Tibetans remain in majority in most areas.

[2] Tibet as defined by CCP means only TAR (Tibetan Autonomous Region). In TAR permanent migration of Hans Chinese is mainly into Lhasa (capital city).

[3] The migration of Hans Chinese does not amount to "cultural genocide" by CCP as on date of report.

[4] Tibet watchers outside China report / believe that CCP is transfering huge number of Hans Chinese into Tibet and they have become the 'New Majority' in Tibet.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2015
1,133
India
The Tibetan identity we observe in Tibet is an ethnic group under a supranational identity, known as "Chinese" and this identity is shared by Tibetan Chinese with Han Chinese and Mongol Chinese.

Saying Tibetans are different from Chinese is like claiming Punjabis are different from Indian. It is a nonsensical statement.
Punjabis can either be Indian or Pakistanis. Most of the present Pakistan Army is manned by Punjabis who were converted to Islam in medieval times. Just like Punjabis cited above, Tibetans can have different identities & nationalities.

Try to avoid words like "myths and lies" (post#171), "nonsensical" ((post#196), rant (post#201).
 
Feb 2011
6,459
You have not given the original reference to the UN Report or its date (it may be very old).
Why does it matter how old it is? However old the report is, the accusations of genocide and questionable '1 million' Tibetan death accusations are way older [Despite that Tibet only had a population of around 1 million] so no matter how old the UN report is, the report is after correcting these accusations which predates it. You can't possibly believe that Tibet under Maoist China is better than Tibet under present China, do you?

The paper was written in 2005 by the way. And what do you mean by the "original reference"? It is a report written by a professor commissioned by the UN who has been there.

A separate survey conducted by Goldstein in 2000 asked Tibetans in TAR "Do you have a better life than your parents did"? The age group that were 60-79 years of age answered an overwhelming yes at 90%. Note that this age group meant that the majority of their parents lived before PRC occupation. So the actual lives of Tibetans would seem to be way different than the "hell on earth" that the media typically paints. Even a secret survey conducted by the Tibetan Exiled government still resulted in about 5000 people out of 17,000 wanting independence, a survey conducted during a time when anti-Chinese government sentiment was at an all time high. It's hard to get any more biased in favor of independence than that, yet it's still only 30% wanting independence within Tibet, tops: Tibetan exiles discuss China policy

Effectively it can be summarized as under:

[1] Tibet as defined by TGIE mean the wider area in which ethnic Tibetan people are settled & are in majority. Here there is significant state-driven migration of Hans Chinese. Still ethnic Tibetans remain in majority in most areas.

[2] Tibet as defined by CCP means only TAR (Tibetan Autonomous Region). In TAR permanent migration of Hans Chinese is mainly into Lhasa (capital city).

[3] The migration of Hans Chinese does not amount to "cultural genocide" by CCP as on date of report.

[4] Tibet watchers outside China report / believe that CCP is transfering huge number of Hans Chinese into Tibet and they have become the 'New Majority' in Tibet.
You forget the bullet points:
1. The “Tibet” that was ruled from Lhasa during China’s Nationalist period 1912-1949 is the TAR only, not significant parts of Qinghai/Sichuan
2. Han Chinese migration into Qinghai/Sichuan have occurred for centuries or at least decades before the PRC was even born.
3. There was only some state-driven Han migration of cadres into Tibet and other Tibetan areas until the 1980s, and a great deal of short-term Han migration to Lhasa in the 1990s, most of it voluntary and aimed at economic profit.
4. The number of Han immigrants there actually fell in the 1990s
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
4,574
Canada
Punjabis can either be Indian or Pakistanis. Most of the present Pakistan Army is manned by Punjabis who were converted to Islam in medieval times. Just like Punjabis cited above, Tibetans can have different identities & nationalities.

Try to avoid words like "myths and lies" (post#171), "nonsensical" ((post#196), rant (post#201).
Yes, Chinese identity
 
Jul 2014
1,602
world
Yes Songtsen that is what my memory was that you were not living in Tibet.

Nice to know that you are a Tibetan.
May I know what do you mean by Tibet? TAR region covers just about half of all the ethnic Tibetan areas and population is actually smaller when compared to the Tibetans living outside it. And TAR is perhaps the least Tibetan region by blood as they are ethnically quite mixed.
 
Oct 2015
1,133
India
May I know what do you mean by Tibet? TAR region covers just about half of all the ethnic Tibetan areas and population is actually smaller when compared to the Tibetans living outside it. And TAR is perhaps the least Tibetan region by blood as they are ethnically quite mixed.
To be frank, I did not know that there were two definitions of Tibet - one by TGIE and other by CCP - till I read the post from @HackneyedScribe (post 193 dated 4th Apr 19). In all discussions till then, I had assumed that Tibet of TGIE was same as the Tibet generally shown in international maps.
 
Jul 2014
1,602
world
To be frank, I did not know that there were two definitions of Tibet - one by TGIE and other by CCP - till I read the post from @HackneyedScribe (post 193 dated 4th Apr 19). In all discussions till then, I had assumed that Tibet of TGIE was same as the Tibet generally shown in international maps.
TGIE definitions of Tibet is very expansionist and extends to lands the Tibetans never lived on like Xining and northern Gansu and Yi ethnic group inhabited lands. The loud moaning about Han immigrants overwhelming the Tibetan people exists due to the claims of TGIE claiming traditional mixed lands or outright Han lands.

It is almost like kashmiri separatists claiming the lands of Jammu as kashmiri land where at best the ethnicity was mixed.
 

Similar History Discussions