Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth

[Dachs]

Wrong.

Chinese was revolting against the Qing dynasty because of its incapability to lead the nation, made apparent by the fact that foreign imperialistic powers were able to colonize and extort ports from China.

And the fact that they were "revolting against an entirely separate ruling ethnic group" is a shining example of nationalism and a sense of nationality amongst the ethnic Chinese people.

Apparently you need to read up on the White Lotus Rebellion against Qianlong. Try to remember that the colonization and port-extortion hadn't happened yet, that the Qing were at the apex of their power, and that the revolt failed to command widespread support primarily because it had no nationalistic appeal. Because that didn't exist at the time.

So, why again do the Chinese get a claim to legitimate control of Tibet? Other than that it's spear-won?

 

[ParkCungHee]

So that justified a Chinese invasion and occupation how? When's China going to roll in Nepal and Bhutan?

Never. Bhutan is significantly more wealthy then Tibet.

 

[Masada]

Never. Bhutan is significantly more wealthy then Tibet.

... only now. I also think you'll find that you didn't cover Bhutan either...

 

[ParkCungHee]

Still. Its doing better now, maybe it's time Tibet was added to Greater Bhutan.

 

[Dachs]

That would certainly improve the Gross National Happiness of both places.

 

[plarq]

Apparently you need to read up on the White Lotus Rebellion against Qianlong. Try to remember that the colonization and port-extortion hadn't happened yet, that the Qing were at the apex of their power, and that the revolt failed to command widespread support primarily because it had no nationalistic appeal. Because that didn't exist at the time.

So, why again do the Chinese get a claim to legitimate control of Tibet? Other than that it's spear-won?

Other than military occupation? It's the fact that Tibet was not recognized as a sovereign nation by any other country. Thus no one could legally intervene--and no one did, in OTL.

 

[Midnight-Blue766]

You man are my hero. I am saving these pages and using them as a reference for every conversation I ever engage on the internet again.

Also, to sum your entire story up in CIV 4 terms:

Tibet: Hereditary Rule, Serfdom, Barbarism, Theocracy
Would you like to live there? I would not.

Actually, it sounds more like Hereditary Rule-Vassalage-Serfdom-Theocracy.

 

[Dachs]

Other than military occupation? It's the fact that Tibet was not recognized as a sovereign nation by any other country. Thus no one could legally intervene--and no one did, in OTL.

Which is why other states were signing treaties with the Tibetans, amirite

 

[REDY]

Well Mongolia and Britain, its much weaker independent status than for example Kosovo.

 

[plarq]

Which is why other states were signing treaties with the Tibetans, amirite

I failed to see any country treating Tibet as sovereign nation, at that time.

 

[Dachs]

I failed to see any country treating Tibet as sovereign nation, at that time.

You're older than you sound.

 

[Reno]

Not going to get dragged into this argument, just here for this one comment.

Other than military occupation? It's the fact that Tibet was not recognized as a sovereign nation by any other country. Thus no one could legally intervene--and no one did, in OTL.

Ironic in that the PRC was not the legally recognized government of China according to most of the world until 1971, well after they had invaded Tibet.

 

[Tee Kay]

Ironic in that the PRC was not the legally recognized government of China according to most of the world until 1971, well after they had invaded Tibet.

The Republic of China also claims Tibet as well.

So, either the West intervenes to uphold RoC authority, and escalate the situation very quickly, or the West intervenes on the basis that Tibet is a sovereign nation, which would really annoy Chiang Kai-shek.

 

[bombshoo]

Other than military occupation? It's the fact that Tibet was not recognized as a sovereign nation by any other country. Thus no one could legally intervene--and no one did, in OTL.

Depending on when you mean, it should be noted the idea of a sovereign state was pretty loose outside of Europe for a long time. Nonetheless, the British did have relations with Tibet throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries that were at least as "official" and "formal" as they had with many states which we now today see as undeniably independent at this time in history such as Ethiopia.

If you mean later, India and a number of smaller Asian countries actually did recognize Tibet as independent in the late 40s and early 50s and a number of countries which made no remark on independence one way or the other did "intervene" with the situation to varying small degrees by meeting with Tibetan ambassadors and accepting Tibetan passports and currency.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Having lived in China for so many years, I find it heartening that such a grand work being presented to people in CFC, where some more or less might have had the wrong ideas about Chinese exploiting Tibetans (which of course, is more of less true) as well as Tibet in general. Why do reasonable voices in society like yours tend to get replaced by more radical tones?

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

Apparently you need to read up on the White Lotus Rebellion against Qianlong. Try to remember that the colonization and port-extortion hadn't happened yet, that the Qing were at the apex of their power, and that the revolt failed to command widespread support primarily because it had no nationalistic appeal. Because that didn't exist at the time.

So, why again do the Chinese get a claim to legitimate control of Tibet? Other than that it's spear-won?

There was Han nationalism back then during the Qing(and I might say even further back, but more or less prevalent among the educated classes, the majority probably didnt really care that much about dynastic changes, considering China's 5000 year-old history); to say that nationalism didnt exist among the Han Chinese back then would be somewhat weird from you, considering your knowledge in history.

 

[luiz]

So the communist Michael Parenti is sympathetic to chinese brutality in Tibet. What a surprise. I specially like the part when "an observer" remarked that the chinese were intially careful to not offend tibetans!
What a reliable source!

No doubt Tibet sucked under the Lamas, but nothing is worse than Communism, specially of the maoist kind. This is what imbeciles like Parenti fail to understand, because they're imbeciles.

 

[Eretz Yisrael]

So the communist Michael Parenti is sympathetic to chinese brutality in Tibet. What a surprise.

No doubt Tibet sucked under the Lamas, but nothing is worse than Communism, specially of the maoist kind. This is what imbeciles like Parenti fail to understand, because they're imbeciles.

What makes Maoism less abhorable then, lets say, Stalinism?

 

[holy king]

No doubt Tibet sucked under the Lamas, but nothing is worse than Communism,

the holocaust?




seriously, the people of tibet are better off now as a chinese colony than they were under the old feudal system.

wanting a more democratic system for tibet is fine. wanting the lamas back is idiotic.

 

[luiz]

What makes Maoism less abhorable then, lets say, Stalinism?

It isn't less abhorrent, that's what I said. Maoism is if anythin worse than Stalinism, though that's not a debate I'd like to have.

seriously, the people of tibet are better off now as a chinese colony than they were under the old feudal system.

wanting a more democratic system for tibet is fine. wanting the lamas back is idiotic.

I agree with both statements. You also ought to agree that black people in the New World are better off than their "cousins" in Africa, so ultimately they profited from slavery. But I don't see Parenti writing an article about just how screwed up Africa was and is and relativizing the evils of slavery. Because that's kind of a sick point to make.

And this is precisely what Parenti is doing here. He is using the progress made throughout China after Xiaoping abandoned communism to justify his beloved maoists!

In other words, yet another lame and intellectually dishnoest article by a communist. Yawn.