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.
It is funny that many people have trouble with Tibet being part of China, while feeling completely fine with Britain still claiming Falkland, or France owning French Guiana, or Hawaii being part of America.
Maybe they want to go back to the days the western power could freely carve up countries however it suits their needs.
The problem is that nobody asked the people of Tibet if they wanted to be Chinese, the PLA just rolled in and invaded the place.
Out of a total population of 600,000 in the islands and 155,000 registered voters, 140,000 votes were cast, the highest turnout ever in Hawaii. The vote showed approval rates of at least 93% by voters on all major islands (see adjacent figure for details). Of the approximately 140,000 votes cast, fewer than 8000 rejected the Admission Act of 1959.
Out of the 1,518 ballots cast, only three voters were against keeping the islands' current status. Turnout was over 90% with 1,650 islanders eligible to vote in a population of 2,841.
It's called self determination ... an apparently unknown word to the largest imperial power of our time. Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, Xijiang ... all occupied lands denied the right of self determination.
What does the OP mean by "should be"? If we ask that question, then possibly every single nation state on earth will have to re-examine their current borders again, because many of these borders were previously soaked with lots of bad blood.
Obviously there was a language issue, but OP never returned? Looks like he is having some problems with the Great Firewall of China. You don't even mention the word "Tibet" in a public forum there without getting, shall we say, attention.
In China, Peoples Repulic of...you don't need to find a party, party finds you.
And I am only half joking, I will be back in China for the 3rd time in a year in a couple weeks.
The problem is that nobody asked the people of Tibet if they wanted to be Chinese, the PLA just rolled in and invaded the place.
Tibet, Hong Kong, Macau, Xijiang ... all occupied lands denied the right of self determination.
j Mixed bag. No one knows how a self-determination vote would turn out, if conducted in Tibet. Most of the serfs were thrilled to be given land to work that was their own. Monks from poor families, who had been held as slaves, were free to go. The reality is very complex. A lot of young people don't even know who the Dalai Lama is. They're into consumer culture. A vote on whether or not to remain part of China could bring surprises. Certainly no one in Tibet now, except for some senior monks, would want a return of the theocracy.
j Mixed bag. No one knows how a self-determination vote would turn out, if conducted in Tibet. Most of the serfs were thrilled to be given land to work that was their own. Monks from poor families, who had been held as slaves, were free to go. The reality is very complex. A lot of young people don't even know who the Dalai Lama is. They're into consumer culture. A vote on whether or not to remain part of China could bring surprises. Certainly no one in Tibet now, except for some senior monks, would want a return of the theocracy.
In the end, a moot point. China is a unitary state. It has never ever had anything resembling a "vote" for its sovereignty in its long and storied past. The Chinese were forcibly unified in 221 BC whether they like it or not. Then imperial expansion and decline happened regardless of any popular vote. Tibet was brought into the Chinese dominion several times, the latest during the Qing. Now it's part of China, whether you like it or not. I have often wondered why the Chinese are always taking such trouble arguing for the possession of Tibet, or any other territory, by going over history. Who cares? If you don't agree with it, tough! China has it, and that's that. Same goes for Xinjiang, and even HK.
In the end, a moot point. China is a unitary state. It has never ever had anything resembling a "vote" for its sovereignty in its long and storied past. The Chinese were forcibly unified in 221 BC whether they like it or not. Then imperial expansion and decline happened regardless of any popular vote. Tibet was brought into the Chinese dominion several times, the latest during the Qing. Now it's part of China, whether you like it or not. I have often wondered why the Chinese are always taking such trouble arguing for the possession of Tibet, or any other territory, by going over history. Who cares? If you don't agree with it, tough! China has it, and that's that. Same goes for Xinjiang, and even HK.
That wasn't the point. Someone posted that no one asked the people of Tibet if they wanted to be part of China. People say that, assuming the people of Tibet would have chosen independence if given the chance. The reality is that a large percentage, perhaps a majority, probably would have chosen to be liberated from serfdom, which means they would have preferred (and still may prefer) to go with China. Many people who are for a "Free Tibet" don't have a clear understanding of what that society was like before the Chinese took over.
In the end, a moot point. China is a unitary state. It has never ever had anything resembling a "vote" for its sovereignty in its long and storied past. The Chinese were forcibly unified in 221 BC whether they like it or not. Then imperial expansion and decline happened regardless of any popular vote. Tibet was brought into the Chinese dominion several times, the latest during the Qing. Now it's part of China, whether you like it or not. I have often wondered why the Chinese are always taking such trouble arguing for the possession of Tibet, or any other territory, by going over history. Who cares? If you don't agree with it, tough! China has it, and that's that. Same goes for Xinjiang, and even HK.
So this means we (the US) can invade Mexico tomorrow just because it's right next to us?
So this means we (the US) can invade Mexico tomorrow just because it's right next to us?
That already happened. It's call the Mexican-American War of 1846. You can sugar coat that war any way you want, but to the Mexicans, it was an invasion and a conquest.
That already happened. It's call the Mexican-American War of 1846. You can sugar coat that war any way you want, but to the Mexicans, it was an invasion and a conquest.
And what was it to the American Indian (Apache and Navaho)? Doesn't matter if it was the Spanish, Mexican, or American to them, simply one invader replaces the other. To them, the Spanish/Mexicans were the invaders. For that matter, what happened to the Anasazi?
OK back to the topic...
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.
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.
