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.
Agree with what? I agree somewhat with his concept, you can't go around redrawing national borders based on this or that culture. But Hawaii and Puerto Rico are bad examples as previously mentioned as Hawaii is NOT culturally different from the rest of the US except in the nature of being a cultural diverse melting pot (as is many parts of the US). And Puerto Rico already have the right of self determination.
The reason these are bad examples as well is that, in spite of PRC bringing in it's own nationals from throughout China to try to change the demographics of Tibet, Tibet today still has a unique culture, religion, society that is still followed by 90% of the population.
Tibet was never any independent nation. Since 17th century, Tibet was under suzerainty of Qing Dynasty . After 1911 China Revolution, all the territories of Qing Dynasty passed on to Republic of China.
In 1914, Simla convention hapened in India to redraw mcmohan line for border between India and tibet. British and indian officials participated from india side as India was a part of british Empire. Tibet and china officials took part in the meeting as Tibet was not any recognized country and china was supposed to sign the document on behalf of Tibet. Tibet was just an autonomous province type region under Republic of China .
Now during and after second world war, there was a civil war in china that who will take control of Republic of China. Mao won the civil war and chiang Kai Shek fled to Formosa (one province of china - now called Taiwan). Army of Mao faction claiming control over republic of china went to every province of china including Tibet which was the last in their march in 1950s.
Thats why no country ever objected on Tibet issue as it was never any recognized or independent nation. For centuries it was looked upon as some autonomous type province under kind of suzerainty of China government.
I think the question is really - "should Tibet have the right of self-determination". Let Tibetans determine if they want independence. Now, naturally, they currently are not given that right by PRC. It's further complicated by the fact that many Tibetans live in exile - Nepal, India, and the U.S.
I think the Dali Lama had at one point petitioned for Tibet independence but is now saying he is for staying part of China as long as they have "cultural independence" i.e. less Chines control. This of course will never happen - Tibet is pretty much what East Germany was 50 years ago, it ain't Shanghai with cell phone and western stores, we are talking old-time hardcore commiebloc control - secret police, survellience, political prisoners...complete with PRC soldiers shooting Tibetans trying to cross the border into Nepal as if it was the Berlin Wall days.
What about them? Your assumptions are incorrect. Puerto Rico has been given the right to self-determination by the U.S. Their have been votes to determine future course for the residents of PR - independence, statehood, some other variation, and they have overwhelmingly chosen to remain part of the U.S. (statehood or commonwealth are still TBD). Any why not? I mean are you kidding? They are suckling on the teat of US dependence. You think they want to give up that? If anything it's the rest of the U.S. saying "please PR, become independent".
Hawaii is already a state and many from the lower 48 have moved in, along with a healthy population of Asians. Only 10% of the population is native Hawaiian. You do the math, you think they want independence (even if it was an option)?
This idea of people claiming independence just because culture is different or they want to secede is controversial.
Forget china, lets say some people in Catalonia wants to secede from Spain. When is the Spain Government making all the arrangements of carving out a new nation and granting them independence? Separatist demands do occur in many parts of western and democratic world. Scotland, Ireland, Spain are just few examples. Are the governments happily creating new nations on every demand ?? There was a US civil war between confederates and unionists on this issue.
This idea of people claiming independence just because culture is different or they want to secede is controversial.
Forget china, lets say some people in Catalonia wants to secede from Spain. When is the Spain Government making all the arrangements of carving out a new nation and granting them independence? Separatist demands do occur in many parts of western and democratic world. Scotland, Ireland, Spain are just few examples.
Catalonia doesn't have a different culture than Spain, Spanish language is spoken more than Catalan language in Catalonia, Catalan is smilar to Spanish, and most of the Catalan people don't want separation.
Ireland is not part of UK.
Catalonia doesn't have a different culture than Spain, Spanish language is spoken more than Catalan language in Catalonia, Catalan is smilar to Spanish, and most of the Catalan people don't want separation.
Ireland is not part of UK.
The same arguments exist and more against the myriad of Hispanic countries in the Western Hemisphere. Same language, very similar cultures, similar histories. Yet, I'm sure all of them would give up on their lives before their independence.
Even Tibet isn't as different from China as many people think. Chinese was spoken in the Dalai Lama's household.
The same arguments exist and more against the myriad of Hispanic countries in the Western Hemisphere. Same language, very similar cultures, similar histories. Yet, I'm sure all of them would give up on their lives before their independence.
The leaders of independences were descendants of Spaniards, known as Criollos, who controlled the masses. It was an economic fight between Spaniards and Criollos.
Quote:
Even Tibet isn't as different from China as many people think.
In his autobiography Freedom in Exile, the Dalai Lama criticized the CIA again for supporting the Tibetan Independence movement "not because they (the CIA) cared about Tibetan independence, but as part of their worldwide efforts to destabilize all communist government". In 1999, the Dalai Lama said that the CIA Tibetan program had been harmful for Tibet because it was primarily aimed at serving American interests, and "once the american policy toward China changed, they stopped their help."
Dalai Lama himself gave up on Tibet Independence in late 1980s. He has repeatedly said that he wants more autonomy within China for Tibet.
CIA gave up on Tibet in late 1960s.
It was a western hoax to destabilise communist government as per Dalai Lama and then abandoned as business ties with mainland China improved.
Tibet was never any independent or recognised country.
As far as ethnic nationalism is concerned, there are hundreds of them around the world.
Spain has demands from Andalusian, Aragonese, Asturian,Basque, Canarian, Castilian, Catalan, Galician, Valencian region. When is Spain dividing into 9 countries ? Never.
Just because some Tom Dick and Harry says we want a separate country, will you divide the world map ?
What about complicated issue of Palestine - Israel then ? Can we apply same Tibet logic there or not ?
Catalonia doesn't have a different culture than Spain, Spanish language is spoken more than Catalan language in Catalonia, Catalan is smilar to Spanish, and most of the Catalan people don't want separation.
Ireland is not part of UK.
What about American Civil War ? Israel - Palestine issue ?
Agree with what? I agree somewhat with his concept, you can't go around redrawing national borders based on this or that culture. But Hawaii and Puerto Rico are bad examples as previously mentioned as Hawaii is NOT culturally different from the rest of the US except in the nature of being a cultural diverse melting pot (as is many parts of the US). And Puerto Rico already have the right of self determination.
The reason these are bad examples as well is that, in spite of PRC bringing in it's own nationals from throughout China to try to change the demographics of Tibet, Tibet today still has a unique culture, religion, society that is still followed by 90% of the population.
You can't go around redrawing national borders based on this or that culture.And it's nothing wrong with some minor ethnicities coesist in one country,for exmaple,the Alsatians and the Bretons in France,should Alsace and Brittany be independent nations as well?I don't think so.And there more than 100 ethnicities in Russia,should every state with dominant non-Russian ethnicities be indepenent?I don't think so either.
While I'm generally opposed to breaking countries up these days, I honestly don't know enough about the history of Tibet to have a strong position one way or the other on this one.
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.
