Outrage as ‘China propaganda’ star handed ESPYS honour

Post Reply New Topic

China's territorial claim to Tibet is much more secure than the United States' claim to former Mexican territory - and the United States did invade Mexico.

The kind of concentration camps that the United States does not have now, neither does China.
China will not make excuses internationally to create lies and coerce allies to admit to sanctioning other countries in order to lower their living standards - which the US is doing recently.

The US-Mexican wars was conducted between two imperial nations (Spain and US). When Mexico did get independence in 1821 the withdrawal of Spanish forces left areas occupied by Spain (California, Texas etc...) largely undefended and the Mexican forces were unable to hold onto territorial gains.

Tibet has been an independent kingdom for thousands of years. To claim they are part of China is laughable. Tibet has always been culturally closer to India than to China.

For starters, the Mexican-American War was fought between the Second Federal Republic of Mexico and the United States, not between Spain and the United States.

The United States seized substantial territory from Mexico by military force, not from the crumbling Spanish Empire. The First Mexican Empire gained independence in 1822, the war didn't occur until 1846.

While you're correct to mention that Mexico dealt with ineffective government and struggled to effectively assert themselves throughout their hinterland, that doesn't make a war of conquest anymore justified.

They'd have done the same to my country if they could have gotten away with it, but instead when they tried the Brits burnt the White House as a reminder of who was a superpower and who was the uppity colony. Might doesn't make right though.

Also, Tibet's independence and autonomy have historically varied because most powers in that region and trying to understand it through the lens of Westphalian norms doesn't work because the traditions of the area ran contrary to our norms.

Last edited by funeralxempire on 21 Jul 2022, 9:11 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Australia invaded and occupied Australia.

Shh, we're not supposed to call out those campaigns of colonial conquest and genocide. It might call into question the legitimacy of the states established through such means.

The Tibetan Empire had disintegrated before the Song Dynasty. During the Song Dynasty, some Tibetan tribal officials were appointed by the central government of the Chinese Empire - which is no different from my ethnic group.

During the Yuan Dynasty, Tibet was ruled by the yuan xuanzheng yuan, whose control included garrisons and household registration checks.

The cultural integration of the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty and Tibet even made the Mongolian characters spell according to the Pinyin of the Tibetan characters.

After the overthrow of the Yuan Dynasty by the Ming Dynasty, Tibet inherited its status during the Yuan Dynasty, although no army was stationed. Whether this period can be regarded as actual rule can be controversial.

In the early Qing Dynasty, there was no actual control over Tibet. Until the 1727s, the entire territory corresponding to the land of the Tibet Autonomous Region was clearly ruled as part of the Chinese Empire - which is longer than the history of the United States and the constitutional continuity of most existing members of the United Nations.

The central government of the Qing Dynasty even established that the reincarnation system of living Buddhas in Tibet needed to be managed by the central government.

It was not until the fall of the Qing Dynasty that Tibet briefly broke away from actual control. ROC inherited the territorial claims of the late Qing Dynasty, but did not have enough power to implement control, just as it could not control most of the territories outside the core cities.

The PRC continued to inherit the territorial claims at the end of the ROC.

Tibet has been a part of China for longer than many European nations have existed.

Which one is more recent can be debated, requiring a breakdown of the different eras.
Koreans are one of the traditional Chinese ethnics, and their culture is 100% equivalent to Korean culture. Is this the reason why their homeland belongs to North Korea?

Last edited by SkinnedWolf on 21 Jul 2022, 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Indeed, but that past hasn't stopped and doesn't appear to be likely to stop in the foreseeable future.

It isn't just the US though, the 5 Eyes act like an empire with a degree of plausible deniability.

Mandala system describes Southeast Asia more.
Tusi is a better system to describe my ethnic and Tibetan history.

It might surprise you to know that the dark skinned ancestors of the Australian aborigines and the people of Melanesia and the Ainu of Japan and indigenous people of the Ryuku islands and Taiwan were the original inhabitants of North and South America.

The ancestors of the east Asians migrating through Siberia and into Alaska (your ancestors) wiped out the entire population of aborigines. The darker skinned indigenous people of north and South America created the earliest empires such as the Olmecs who's heads are decidedly non-Mongolian. The level of genocide must have been quite thorough. Remnants of the aboriginal populations survive in Hokkaido in northern Japan and in Tierra Del Fuego on the southern tip of Chile.

The dark skinned inhabitants of Easter Island, Hawaii and New Zealand, Phillipijnes and much of South Easat Asia were also wiped out by the incoming asiatics. They borrowed their sailing skills and some like the Moari of NZ also ate the people they came across.

But of course, if time is an issue then there is a statute of limitations right?

I'd prefer to ask the Tibetans and see what they think of these ideas

I'm not sure why these are "ideas". I am basically quoting the Chinese version of Wiki. Wiki are not mainly maintained by people in Chinese Mainland.
Uygur ancestors believed in Buddhism, while Muslim Uygurs did not deny that their ancestors did not believe Islam in the history.


It kind depends on whether they are former serfs/slaves or former slave owners.
The worship of Mao Zedong by those old former serf Tibetans will shock other Chinese people.

"Independent Tibet" are mainly enthusiastic followers of the 14th Dalai Lama Lama.
Another major living Buddha, Panchen, has no objection to the continued ownership of the central government.
Of course, this is because Dalai is closer to secular leaders than Panchen, so he controls more land, and slaves. In 1954, he was even elected vice chairman of the Standing Committee of the first National People's Congress of the people's Republic of China. He suffered benefit losses in the campaign to ban slavery in 1959. Before 1959, he peacefully led the Tibetans under his rule to be loyal to the central government, but retained his feudal slavery. This slave owner's identity may be the reason why the 14th Dalai Lama only dared to propose "independent Tibet" and did not want Tibetans to self-determination.
Even so, even though Panchen has the upper hand in the power struggle in ancient history, a considerable area of the Tibetan Plateau has never been controlled by the Dalai Lama, but by Panchen.

His previous life, the 13th Dalai Lama, made it clear that Tibetans are Chinese and they accept the leadership of the RoC. And condemned Japan's aggression and promised not to get close to Britain.
14th Dalai Lama himself, like his previous lives since the Qing Dynasty, was reincarnated by the ROC central government. When he was canonized, ROC's flag and national anthem were used there. His hostility was directed against the Communist Party, not the Chinese central government, because he did not expect the Communist Party to allow him to keep slaves.


The historical origin of "independent Tibet" is that after the British invasion of Tibet was countered by the local people (this itself led to the exile of the 13th Dalai Lama), in order to try to fully control the region, the British empires signed the British Russian alliance treaty in 1907, which called China's(at that time, China was already a semi colony of Western powers) sovereignty over Tibet as suzerainty. Just like the experience of other marginal territories of the Chinese Empire in that period.

The view of the independence of marginal territories based on the denial of history is itself part of colonial activities. And the Anglo circle continues to be fascinated by this idea.


I mean, if you are really enthusiastic about Tibet, I'm not sure whether the English version is really difficult to find the historical speech records of Tibetan leaders, but its Chinese and Tibetan versions are very easy to find.


And, despite my ethnicity independence's jurisprudence as strong as "Tibetan independence," and a larger population than Tibetans, because of our homeland's lack of a strategic position, no westerner is as enthusiastic about whether we want independence. Although we don't actually want to.

Nationalism is a common Scarecrow when responding to criticism that distorts the situation in other regions.
I have repeatedly mentioned criticism of Chinese culture on WP. My T-shirt is used to commemorate the passing of Eastern Rome, not a Chinese dynasty. My literary writing is only based on Medieval and Renaissance Europe rather than ancient China, so that I have basically been criticized as a role like "Uncle Tom". Even so, whites still feel "not enough".

You need to understand the situation of circumstance. The period of history you refer to represented a time when Tibetans faced a direct threat from the British empire. In that situation the support of the then RoC was gratefully accepted.

I am certain if Chang Kai Shek has remained in power in the 1940s the Tibetans would have come to some sort an arrangement with both democratic China and India to have autonomy not unlike the kingdom of Nepal or the kingdom of Bhutan led by their spiritual leader the Dalai Lama. The reason they objected to Mao's incursion was not just because the Chinese communists outlawed religion but because Mao's version of international communism had a manifesto to spread communism like they were bringing enlightenment to undeveloped countries.

The propaganda about Tibet being part of China then why not Assam, Nepal or Bhutan? they also comprise Tibetan peoples as well?
The answer is that they chose to resist. Assam was absorbed into the Indian administration region during British rule and Nepal and Bhutan's independence was respected by India. The Assamese people's retain political control of their region. This is in stark contrast to Tibet where not only is their right to practice buddhism under constant threat but the region has been flooded with ethnic Han. The idea in both Tibet and Xinjiang is to out-populate the muslims and Tibetans, This tactic is used by the French in New Caledonia in the south Pacific where indigenous people are not outnumbered by Frnech migrants sent by the French to ensure they never vote for independence.

There is no logical or historical reason therefore for Tibetans to consider themselves Chinese. The fact is those who live outside of China do not consider themselves Chinese which means the populace in Tibet are living under duress.

So the reason why the reincarnation of living Buddha should ask for the central government draw lots since the Qing Dynasty? 金瓶掣签/གསེར་བུམ་སྐྲུག་པ

f*****g democratic China. Do you know anything about Chiang Kai Shek and KMT except that "not Communists"?

His rule has nothing to do with democracy. Taiwan did not even gain democracy before his death.
Whether he ruled the mainland or Taiwan, he carried out many purges of dissidents. Simply ask the DPPs in Taiwan about their hatred for Chiang Kai Shek. They are descendants of landlords and intellectuals suppressed by Chiang Kai Shek. The democratization of Taiwan is actually the result of KMT's inability to completely suppress local forces in Taiwan (but not Taiwan's indigenous people).
But the advantage of supporting him is that he simply does not have enough control to actually control most parts of China, so the Dalai Lama, like other warlords in China, can ignore the central command.

Before the real riot in Tibet (1959), Mao did not interfere with the Dalai Lama's continued practice of slavery.
However, this should not be about the dissemination of ideology. This is slavery.

Tibetan is a mixed concept. Their common identity was defined by the Tubo empire that lasted for two centuries, but then they were highly divided. Not all Tibetans believe in the same branch of Buddhism, and their political affiliation is also different. Even within China, not all Tibetan homes belong to the Tibet Autonomous Region. Some of them have smaller autonomous regions outside Tibet.
Is it a rare thing that a ethnic group in multiple sovereign countries have traditional homes?


They gained independence from the Lhasa regime.
If you know the history of Bhutan, there are mountains between them and the main area of Tibet, which makes it difficult for Lhasa to respond to their independence.(However, this also led to a plain between them and India, which made it easy for India to insult them.) It was in the 9th century AD.
Bhutan was once a vassal state of the Tubo Empire——Not even part of the Tubo empire——and the Tubo Empire and the Tang Empire were parallel regimes. After the collapse of the Tubo Empire, Bhutan lost any contact with China.

And somehow, you missed Sikkim. They were annexed by India in 1975.
China was the last country that no longer insisted on marking Sikkim as a sovereign state on the world map, which was around 2000.


f*****g Bhutan is respected by India. I can write a long article on India's atrocities against Bhutan's sovereignty and the blockade imposed on them. This is no different from Sikkim's past, and maybe it will be same in the future.
(However, even so, Bhutan's rule somehow had many characteristics that look like North Korea.)

Among the permanent residents of the region, the Tibetan population is 2716389, the population of other ethnic minorities is 40514, and the Han population is 245263. The population of Tibetans and other ethnic minorities accounts for 91.83% (including 90.48% of Tibetans and 1.35% of other ethnic minorities); The Han population accounts for 8.17%. February 28, 2012——Quoted from the one under Google search.
There is the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Non-Tibetan people simply cannot survive for long. Jobs offered to residents of other parts of China to travel to Tibet can only require them to stay for up to five years or cause permanent health damage. Despite the high subsidies, it is difficult to recruit residents from other parts of China for this type of work.

Xinjiang first exists as a huge province. Muslims have never completely dominated this area in history.
The southern part of Xinjiang is a traditional Uygur settlement. But its north was first the home of the Jungar Mongols until the Manchu Qing Dynasty genocided the Jungar Mongols after years of civil war with them. Subsequently, a large number of Han, Manchu, and Uyghur were forcibly relocated to northern Xinjiang.
Many ethnic groups live in Xinjiang for generations. The Han people there even have their own Mandarin dialects - in China, the differences between dialects will be called new languages in Europe.

In our autonomous region, our ethnic group has only more than 40% of the population, while the Han ethnic has about 50%. Is this because we are extinct or the Han ethnic has introduced too many immigrants?
China's autonomous region is first of all a geographical administrative unit. When a certain minority ethnic there exceeds a certain proportion, it can be called an autonomous region to obtain policies, although there are actually a large number of settlements of Han and other ethnic minorities. It is not divided according to the distribution of primitive ethnic groups.

Residents of five eyed countries seem unable to understand the ethnic distribution except the "indigenous reservations". In non colonial areas, the boundary of ethnic settlements is quite vague, and many ethnic groups are originally live in mix.


Or, only those atypical Tibetans choose to go abroad to find their political supporters and spread the truth of their version?

Classic phenomenon of left-wing coup/reform/revolution. The runaway slave owners, nobles, and capitalists cried to the free world that they had lost their legitimate right to exploit others, free world got materials for propaganda, and the former exploitees, the real majority of the people, were satisfied with the new left-wing government.
And once the voices of these people do not conform to the imagination/demand of the free world, these voices will be ignored, or they will accuse the left-wing regime of suppressing or brainwashing or hiring propaganda personnel.

Which is the better state, "original flavor" culture, but most people are oppressed. Or outlaw the oppressors and give most people a better quality of life? It depends on whether these people are defined as "they" or "we".


The constitution of the PRC established in 1949 includes "suppressing local nationalism, especially Han nationalism". Communists are leftists, of course. In the national ceremony, every legal traditional ethnic minority needs to attend the representatives wearing ethnic costumes, and Han people are not allowed to express their ethnic identity. Classic left-wing politically correct.

Imagine Australia or the United States, where the constitution called for "suppression of white nationalism" when it was founded?
The White Australia policy began in 1901 and ended in 1973; A whole black camp in the United States surrendered to China because of racism in the army during the Korean War. (this historiy is also fairly unknown in China)


Chinese currency. Guess which languages are in the upper right corner?

Culture and literature is much older and richer than medieval and renaissance Europe. There is a concept called "eurocentricism" and nations fallen under the sphere of European influence such as South Korea, Japan, Taiwan etc have culturally assimilated many aspects of western culture including literature, dress, government etc

Europe has been the centre of global civilisation for several hundred years following the renaissance because it provided a fertile ground to adopt and assimilate other cultural influence and independently develop it as its own. The topic is too large to address here but what's interesting is that literary writing in medieval Europe is a product of liturgical texts from Latin/Rome mixed with local folkloric oral traditions. Almost all Europeans were non-literate up to the renaissance and looked to Latin.biblical christian sources and to Roman/Greek stories. The Greeks who have the earliest body of literature among Europeans attest to have learned all their knowledge from the new kingdom Egyptians who 2000 years ago were already an ancient people when the famous Greek scholars visited Egypt for the first time.

A lot to unpack so let's start with this. Chang Kai Shek was a warlord (agreed) and was reliant on the criminal underworld (Green gang), however he had the backing of western countries. The China lobby in the US collected money for Change Kai Shek so had he been able to resist the communists then he would have been installed by the US as a leader of China and forced to implement a semblance of democracy (not unlike other Chinese democracies like Singapore) but the country would have been controlled behind the scenes by his KMT. He would also have checked territorial ambitions as not to aggravate his close relations with the US. Tibet would therefore have been left alone.

You are trying to justify Mao's invasion and control over Tibet on the basis of slavery. The tibetans practiced a form of serfdom which most of the population to fuedal lords which was a system common in medieval Europe and was present in Russia up to the Russian revolution. Whether this constituted slavery as you content is a matter of contention but countries that practiced slavery in North Africa and the middle east up to the 1970s eventually banned this practice without the need for invasion. Mao's reason for invasion had nothing to do with emancipation since he allowed the practice to continue for 10 years after China invaded.

There are two indications that the Chinese incursion has not benefited the traditional landowners of Tibet.

The first is that in 1949 when Mao invaded Tibet there were no Han living in this independent nation. Today that proportion has shifted with 12% of the population now Han.

Second the Chinese government, offers lucrative incentives including better accommodation and employment opportunities with higher salaries to Han Chinese, The CCP has encouraged Han to move to Tibet as part of their “population transfer policy”. This, in turn, has resulted in a large-scale migration of Han Chinese to Tibet and has, hence, severely impacted the use of the Tibetan language in the urban regions of the region as the economy is largely controlled by Han immigrants. According to the US Department of State report on Tibet states that Han migrants are benefiting more from the government’s subsidized economic development policies than Tibetans.

Ironically this model of economic domination is how the overseas Chinese population have largely taken control over the economies of most of South East Asia. This is best exemplified by the Chinese population in Thailand. The proportion of ethnic Chinese in Thailand is exactly the same as in the Tibetan autonomous region (approx 12%). Yet incredibly 90% of Thailand's manufacturing sector and 50% of Thailand's service sector is controlled by ethnic Chinese. In Indonesia they only make up 5% of the Indonesian population but they control 70% of the wealth (interestingly this is the same as South African whites who also hold 70% of the countries wealth despite giving back control of South Africa to the local black people).

Based on these statistics I imagine the economy of Tibet is probably 100% controlled by Chinese Han, I have watched a documentary on urban business sector in Lhasa and Han own all the businesses and the Tibetans are only employed to do menial work. I very much doubt the local Tibetans are satisfied with this arrangement. If Tibetans want work in their own country they must learn Mandarin.