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 01-14-2015, 05:52 PM
 
Location: Behind You!
1,949 posts, read 3,522,207 times
Reputation: 2673

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Postman View Post
It's as much a part of China as America is part of the USA.
WHAT? America is a continent, The United States is a country soooooooooo that doesn't make any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2015, 01:27 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
1,392 posts, read 1,276,102 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by snatale1 View Post
WHAT? America is a continent, The United States is a country soooooooooo that doesn't make any sense.
1. It's two continents North America and South America.

2. America refers to the United States of America world wide. Regardless if people in Latin America don't like it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-09-2015, 04:10 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,424 posts, read 12,419,193 times
Reputation: 4857
Around 250 million years ago Tibet was located on the other side of the world away from China neighboring India, Nepal, Bhutan, Australia and the Panthalassic Ocean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 06:24 PM
 
Location: University City, Philadelphia
22,592 posts, read 12,337,977 times
Reputation: 15493
In my opinion, Tibet was a separate country by virtue of the fact that for most of history spanning hundreds of years it was an independent nation. Tibetans are a different ethnic group apart from the Chinese, they speak Tibetan as their native language and not any Chinese dialect, and they practice a different school of Buddhism - Vajrayana - and not the Mahayana branch of Buddhism of the Chinese. It is administered by the People's Republic of China. It is considered a semi-autonomous region.

I will not go into whether Tibet is better off under the Chinese umbrella, if they should even consider seeking independence, if they should stay within China but work for greater autonomy. That is another discussion.

Right now Tibet is as much a part of China as Alaska and Hawai'i are a part of the United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 06:33 PM
 
4,685 posts, read 3,614,137 times
Reputation: 7382
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
In my opinion, Tibet was a separate country by virtue of the fact that for most of history spanning hundreds of years it was an independent nation. Tibetans are a different ethnic group apart from the Chinese, they speak Tibetan as their native language and not any Chinese dialect, and they practice a different school of Buddhism - Vajrayana - and not the Mahayana branch of Buddhism of the Chinese. It is administered by the People's Republic of China. It is considered a semi-autonomous region.

I will not go into whether Tibet is better off under the Chinese umbrella, if they should even consider seeking independence, if they should stay within China but work for greater autonomy. That is another discussion.

Right now Tibet is as much a part of China as Alaska and Hawai'i are a part of the United States.
Yup, that about sums it all up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-11-2015, 07:19 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,680 posts, read 70,554,766 times
Reputation: 76645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
Around 250 million years ago Tibet was located on the other side of the world away from China neighboring India, Nepal, Bhutan, Australia and the Panthalassic Ocean.
250 mil years ago, Tibet wasn't Tibet, nor did China, India or Nepal exist. Moot point. (What was the point, anyway?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 09:45 AM
 
10,847 posts, read 11,262,981 times
Reputation: 7586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park View Post
In my opinion, Tibet was a separate country by virtue of the fact that for most of history spanning hundreds of years it was an independent nation. Tibetans are a different ethnic group apart from the Chinese, they speak Tibetan as their native language and not any Chinese dialect, and they practice a different school of Buddhism - Vajrayana - and not the Mahayana branch of Buddhism of the Chinese. It is administered by the People's Republic of China. It is considered a semi-autonomous region.

I will not go into whether Tibet is better off under the Chinese umbrella, if they should even consider seeking independence, if they should stay within China but work for greater autonomy. That is another discussion.

Right now Tibet is as much a part of China as Alaska and Hawai'i are a part of the United States.
Agree with this.

Tibet is more like Catalonia in Spain, or Scotland in the UK, with its own unique culture and language, but with intricate historic ties with the bigger country it is located in.

I consider Tibet to be a nation within a nation. While I don't support full independency (it is bad for both Tibet and China), high level of autonomy should be given.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 10:49 AM
 
Location: Gatineau, QC, Canada
3,402 posts, read 4,446,886 times
Reputation: 4409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
Around 250 million years ago Tibet was located on the other side of the world away from China neighboring India, Nepal, Bhutan, Australia and the Panthalassic Ocean.
Actually it wasn't, it's part of Eurasia proper. Much of the himalayas and likely all of Tibet are North of the Indian and Australian plate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,424 posts, read 12,419,193 times
Reputation: 4857
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse44 View Post
Actually it wasn't, it's part of Eurasia proper. Much of the himalayas and likely all of Tibet are North of the Indian and Australian plate.
Just search Pangea in google and look at the first picture
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-16-2015, 02:40 PM
 
Location: State of Transition
78,680 posts, read 70,554,766 times
Reputation: 76645
Quote:
Originally Posted by Davy-040 View Post
Just search Pangea in google and look at the first picture
That one is inaccurate, and doesn't correspond to any of the other diagrams, which include the Tibetan Plateau as part of Eurasia. If Tibet had been part of the Indian plate, the main mountain range that resulted from its collision with Eurasia would have been on the north side of the Tibetan Plateau, not on the south side.


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