U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-02-2016, 10:12 PM
 
964 posts, read 710,226 times
Reputation: 1271

Advertisements

I found this. According to this series of maps (watch as the image changes from one historical era to the next), indicating the different dynasties, Tibet wasn't part of China before the Mongol invasion at any time. After the Mongols made China part of their empire, Tibet was annexed to Mongolia as well. So Tibet was not "part of China" at that time; it was part of Mongolia, as were China, much of Russia, Central Asia, Persia and Afghanistan, etc. After the collapse of the Mongol Empire, Tibet reverted to independence until the Manchus took over China. China's claim on Tibet only dates back to the Mongol Empire, and even so, the claim was not maintained consistently, according to this graphic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynast...s_in_China.gif

Last edited by MountainHi; 02-02-2016 at 10:23 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2016, 11:01 PM
 
Location: USA
32 posts, read 21,311 times
Reputation: 24
I wonder what would be the scenario if China had not invaded Tibet in 1950 in the first place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 03:13 AM
 
1,424 posts, read 742,381 times
Reputation: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHi View Post
I found this. According to this series of maps (watch as the image changes from one historical era to the next), indicating the different dynasties, Tibet wasn't part of China before the Mongol invasion at any time. After the Mongols made China part of their empire, Tibet was annexed to Mongolia as well. So Tibet was not "part of China" at that time; it was part of Mongolia, as were China, much of Russia, Central Asia, Persia and Afghanistan, etc. After the collapse of the Mongol Empire, Tibet reverted to independence until the Manchus took over China. China's claim on Tibet only dates back to the Mongol Empire, and even so, the claim was not maintained consistently, according to this graphic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynast...s_in_China.gif
Harbin had never been a part of China till Qing Dynasty either, and it was built by Russians. So?
About 1/2 land of modern China became a part of China only in Qing Dynasty (or Manchus invasion in your term).
So that does not matter.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 01:11 PM
 
964 posts, read 710,226 times
Reputation: 1271
Quote:
Originally Posted by yueng-ling View Post
Harbin had never been a part of China till Qing Dynasty either, and it was built by Russians. So?
About 1/2 land of modern China became a part of China only in Qing Dynasty (or Manchus invasion in your term).
So that does not matter.
Well, it does matter if you're trying to base a claim on Tibet on the fact that it's "always" been part of China. If you want to argue that China has a right to Tibet based on the fact that the PRC is the successor to the Qing Dynasty, that's a different argument than what often is advanced. I would say that it's a more honest argument to base it on the Qing.

In any case, the Tibetan theocracy and the landowning elite basically shot themselves in the foot, by ignoring offers to help as China was amassing an army on its borders. They had their head in the sand. And some of the Dalai Lama's own family members were pro-China. So they can't really complain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 02:26 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
79,180 posts, read 71,283,351 times
Reputation: 77363
Quote:
Originally Posted by yueng-ling View Post
That's your view based on Western perspective.
Chinese people always recognize them as Chinese dynasties. And this is not "communist propaganda" because ancient Chinese held the same view.
Those groups submitted to China government and had intensive contacts with other people in or near China. When China government became weak, they rebelled and sometimes succeeded. Just cycles like that.

Of course, they are not Han Chinese and people know the difference. But again, China has NEVER been a country with only one ethnic group.
Actually, that isn't Western perspective. Western scholars use the Chinese model. The point is, that it's the Chinese perspective, not an objective one. Of course the ancient Chinese, as well as the Taiwan Chinese, and the PRC have the same perspective; they're all Chinese, and the ROC and PRC were the inheritors of ancient Chinese history.

This is not at all the perspective of the Mongols (an independent nation, not a Chinese minority), today's Manchu peoples (in Russia as well as in China), or the Tibetans. China, as you know, in ancient times was "the middle kingdom", which did not include far western territories, except at one time China expended into the Dunhuang area, but not Tibet. And it didn't hold those western lands long-term. "China" was mostly an eastern phenomenon, and in several periods, it was restricted to the south and southeast (with the Liao, another Mongol kingdom, in the north, for example).

It's not possible that ancient Chinese people believed Tibet was part of China, because they barely knew Tibet existed back then. China in its early history was struggling with its own state formation, at times having difficulty maintaining unity, and struggling to keep out foreign invaders ("barbarians"). Tibet was not on its radar at that time.

Personally, I think China has fooled the world, and history specialists, for too long. It's time to represent China's history accurately, rather than maintain this fiction of foreign conquerors setting up Chinese "dynasties", but that's just me.


I think the more important question is: is Tibet better off as part of China, compared to being under the thrall of an oppressive and corrupt theocracy and landed elite?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 02:26 PM
 
1,424 posts, read 742,381 times
Reputation: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHi View Post
Well, it does matter if you're trying to base a claim on Tibet on the fact that it's "always" been part of China. If you want to argue that China has a right to Tibet based on the fact that the PRC is the successor to the Qing Dynasty, that's a different argument than what often is advanced. I would say that it's a more honest argument to base it on the Qing.

In any case, the Tibetan theocracy and the landowning elite basically shot themselves in the foot, by ignoring offers to help as China was amassing an army on its borders. They had their head in the sand. And some of the Dalai Lama's own family members were pro-China. So they can't really complain.
In history, nothing is really "always". Even China government uses the term "since ancient time" not "always".

Foreigners could not really "help" Tibet either. You see what happened in Korea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 02:27 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
79,180 posts, read 71,283,351 times
Reputation: 77363
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainHi View Post
Good find, thanks for posting this! It's a helpful resource.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 02:32 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
79,180 posts, read 71,283,351 times
Reputation: 77363
Quote:
Originally Posted by X14Freak View Post
Roosevelt and the US considered Tibet to be a part of China. Chiang Kai-Shek was just as brutal to minorities in China as any other previous leaders of China yet no one had a problem with this. It is quite obvious that to most Chinese citizens that Tibetan independence is a ruse to strategically weaken China. I should ask you what exactly does China get out of Tibetan independence and what will the West and Japan give in return to China for Tibetan independence? Losing Tibet means losing a militarily strategic plateau and the watersheds for important rivers that supply water to hundred of millions of Chinese citizens. I suppose China should grant a few million Tibetans independence to land that amounts to 1/4 of China since it is the moral thing to do and things like security and water do not really matter. I guess hundreds of millions of Chinese nationals should suffer from water shortages because it will give the Chinese a good feeling of conscience that they granted independence to a few million Tibetans.
I've never said Tibet should be independent of China. I was just setting the historical record straight.

But you present an odd argument. Why should China grab a country just because it's rivers originate there? That's odd reasoning. Should the US claim parts of southern Canada, then? Should the countries surrounding Switzerland divide up that country among themselves, to have control of important watersheds? Does national sovereignty mean nothing in the face of someone's perceived need to control watersheds?

Try again. You can come up with better arguments for China to have Tibet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 02:39 PM
 
1,424 posts, read 742,381 times
Reputation: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth View Post
Actually, that isn't Western perspective. Western scholars use the Chinese model. The point is, that it's the Chinese perspective, not an objective one. Of course the ancient Chinese, as well as the Taiwan Chinese, and the PRC have the same perspective; they're all Chinese, and the ROC and PRC were the inheritors of ancient Chinese history.

This is not at all the perspective of the Mongols (an independent nation, not a Chinese minority), today's Manchu peoples (in Russia as well as in China), or the Tibetans. China, as you know, in ancient times was "the middle kingdom", which did not include far western territories, except at one time China expended into the Dunhuang area, but not Tibet. And it didn't hold those western lands long-term. "China" was mostly an eastern phenomenon, and in several periods, it was restricted to the south and southeast (with the Liao, another Mongol kingdom, in the north, for example).

It's not possible that ancient Chinese people believed Tibet was part of China, because they barely knew Tibet existed back then. China in its early history was struggling with its own state formation, at times having difficulty maintaining unity, and struggling to keep out foreign invaders ("barbarians"). Tibet was not on its radar at that time.

Personally, I think China has fooled the world, and history specialists, for too long. It's time to represent China's history accurately, rather than maintain this fiction of foreign conquerors setting up Chinese "dynasties", but that's just me.


I think the more important question is: is Tibet better off as part of China, compared to being under the thrall of an oppressive and corrupt theocracy and landed elite?
Objectivity is not necessary (if possible at all) in history.

After Mongols and Manchus invaded China proper, they actually governed China in the same way as Chinese did. Chinese people did not significantly change their identity, language, culture, economic system and so on. For example, both Yuan and Qing worshipped Confucius. The laws were still written in Chinese and did not change much. It is fundamentally different from the Islamification of Persia, or the "Aryan invasion" of India.

In old days, nations were not equal to each other (maybe today is the same) and powerful nations always had a strong influence on smaller nations in terms of political systems and culture. Therefore, sometimes the boundary between "countries" is vague.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2016, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Land of Free Johnson-Weld-2016
6,473 posts, read 14,012,099 times
Reputation: 6436
Hell yes it is. So are Taiwan and Hong Kong. Of course I can't say this too loudly as the imperialist overlords seem to get some sort of pleasure it supporting separatist movements in other countries. Weren't the opium wars enough? Enough already Tibet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > Asia
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top