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's been a tributary state much more than it's ever been an actual part of China and this does sort of go back and forth. I'm also not sure if historical precedence going way back really solidifies a claim that much though I do like the idea of Mongolia trying to push a claim for the majority of Eurasia. It'd be pretty fun.
If China gives Tibet back, shouldn't the US give say Hawaii back too? Or Russia Siberia?
If China gives Tibet back, shouldn't the US give say Hawaii back too? Or Russia Siberia?
Maybe. Those probably make less sense than Tibet getting independence for two closely related reasons. One is that there's not that much of a nativist sentiment for Hawaii or Russia Siberia (though I have read about a minor secessionist movement in Far East Russia) that's trying to gain independence. The other is that it doesn't make much more demographic sense--though maybe some time in the future it won't make much demographic sense for Tibet either.
There will certainly be people who immigrate to Tibet from the rest of China stay on, intermarry with Tibetans and make that region home. You can make analogues with the American Southwest or Hawaii, or the Canadian tundra, or the inner deserts of Australia: a territory gets annexed by a nation, people from the nation that annexed it take advantage of jobs related to the resources there, some cycle through back home and others lay down roots... fast forward one, two generations, and you now have a large, possibly majority, permanent population of people who aren't a part of the area's native culture, per se, and thus would be disinclined to join any sort of independence movement.
Tibetans usually do not marry Hans. Those who do are usually "not authentic" (e.g. speak Chinese instead of Tibetan).
In Xinjiang it is even more obvious. Very few Uyghurs or Kazakhs would marry a Han Chinese (again, except for those who are not "authentic").
On the other hand, many Han Chinese do not want to marry minorities either.
Im still waiting for the United Nations De-colonization Committee to place Tibet on the list of "non-self governing territories".
I find it strange how only US, British, or French territories are on the list but we never hear a single peep about Tibet, Xijaing, Kashmir, Tuva, Dagestan, Chechnya, East Turkestan, etc. I guess imperialism is only wrong when it's the Westerners doing the colonizing ...
Well, China vs Tibet is more like England vs Scotland. It's definitely not like Hong Kong or South Africa.
Maybe. Those probably make less sense than Tibet getting independence for two closely related reasons. One is that there's not that much of a nativist sentiment for Hawaii or Russia Siberia (though I have read about a minor secessionist movement in Far East Russia) that's trying to gain independence. The other is that it doesn't make much more demographic sense--though maybe some time in the future it won't make much demographic sense for Tibet either.
Actually there is. And I'm not sure if most Tibetans would not accept being part of China under certain conditions. Tibet is sparsely populated, as was Siberia. It would be easy to demographically overwhelm it.
Tibetans usually do not marry Hans. Those who do are usually "not authentic" (e.g. speak Chinese instead of Tibetan).
In Xinjiang it is even more obvious. Very few Uyghurs or Kazakhs would marry a Han Chinese (again, except for those who are not "authentic").
On the other hand, many Han Chinese do not want to marry minorities either.
I'm sure it's not uncommon/will increase in the future. That's one way how Chinese culture spread. Many people are China are the product of mixture between Han and Mongols and Jurchen, for example.
Not a chance. There are only 3 million people living in Tibet and Lhasa is 2200 miles from Beijing. It'd be like the Inuits trying to kick out the Americans from Alaska. Western intervention is unlikely seeing as how Tibet has no oil and corporations love their cheap labor. The only possibility for Tibetan independence is for a wholesale political complete collapse of the Chinese government ala 1912, which is how Tibet originally became independent from the Qing dynasty.
Tibetans usually do not marry Hans. Those who do are usually "not authentic" (e.g. speak Chinese instead of Tibetan).
In Xinjiang it is even more obvious. Very few Uyghurs or Kazakhs would marry a Han Chinese (again, except for those who are not "authentic").
On the other hand, many Han Chinese do not want to marry minorities either.
In the case of Hans not wanting to marry out, don't you think that will continue to change due to the disparate numbers between men and women? Chinese men are already starting to marry Vietnamese women in fairly large numbers.
In the case of Hans not wanting to marry out, don't you think that will continue to change due to the disparate numbers between men and women? Chinese men are already starting to marry Vietnamese women in fairly large numbers.
Vietnamese are culturally closer to Chinese than Tibetans are. Some Vietnamese are actually ethnic Chinese too, or have some Chinese blood.
There are only a few million Tibetans in total, less than the population of a major Chinese city. so it won't serve anything either.
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.
