Your opinion about Tibet?

[~Corsair#01~]

No I never said they did. My point here is that no one is questioning that the 13 colonies was wrong to revolt and yet the Chinese have a far more brutal history with Tibet than the British ever did with their American colonies.

Well actually I do! Their motivations were largely fictional and do not justify the deaths. Taxes were too high? Actually, no they were the lowest paid by virtually anyone in the western world. And the Americans only went and raised them dramatically after their war ended. American national identity is a fiction and certainly wasn't an issue at the time.
It could also be pointed out that Britain was a good deal more liberal than America was and that they most certainly would have given women the vote and ended slavery there before the USA did, as they did historically. And they wouldn't have required the bloodiest war ever fought in North America to do it either.

I am confident that this whole mess can be resolved and America brought back, but it could take a while...

 

[Tecibbar]

There isn't this thing called an "ocean" between Tibet and China.

But there is the thing called the "mountain". It's much easier to carry troops and supply accross ocean than up couple miles to a mountain. Also keep in mind you could pillage road and railroad.

People seem to get an impression that Tibetan's were doing fine before under theocracy. Well, you don't know that. And will Tibet be better off independent? Compared to Mongol, at least Tibet is doing much better economically. (Republic of China still doesn't recognize Mongol's independence from China)

 

[The Tollan]

Tibet should either be independent or it should have a large amount of regional autonomy. Autonomy is an acceptable alternative to independence.

I reject the PRC's claim to absolute authority in Tibet. Combat should not be involved in the process of resolving the issue. Why must the two sides fight when the reasonable autonomy would probably resolve the issue? Unforunately the PRC is not keen on any peaceful solution that involves substantial concessions. Would Tibetans really start carrying out guerrilla warfare or terrorists attacks against Chinese if they were given some autonomy? That seems to be the only argument against loosening the chains.

If only the PRC were removed off of China like the wart it is and replace it with a government like Taiwan's (I am not calling the PRC a wart because it is not democratic rather than are other reasons). After that Taiwan and China would perhaps unite and then with a new, better age why continue to colonize Tibet?

How well the Tibetans would fare under the own government is fairly irrelevant to the debate except in extreme cases. That only matters if Tibetans try force oppression on other groups or if they set up a North Korean or Saudi Arabian like regime.

 

[The Tollan]

...the British in the 1700s as something of the Nazi Empire or Japan of World War II. No, no, no. The British were arguably the most liberal and prosperous of the colonizers of the time.

That is true regarding the governing of colonists. That is why there were a lot of Tories/loyalists during the time of the war (I have heard that there were roughly about equal in numbers to the pro-indepence faction). Each had about 1/3 of the population though with varying degress of commitment. Then there was the other 1/3 that was not too committed I think.

 

[plarq]

But there is the thing called the "mountain". It's much easier to carry troops and supply accross ocean than up couple miles to a mountain. Also keep in mind you could pillage road and railroad.

People seem to get an impression that Tibetan's were doing fine before under theocracy. Well, you don't know that. And will Tibet be better off independent? Compared to Mongol, at least Tibet is doing much better economically. (Republic of China still doesn't recognize Mongol's independence from China)

Mongolia was recognized by Taiwan in 2002.

 

[Joe Harker]

Also keep in mind you could pillage road and railroad.

You have been playing too much civ

 

[plarq]

You have been playing too much civ

Perhaps you should try war in the pacific, where subs can pillage your trade route to hell.

 

[Shekwan]

So the main argument against Tibetan independence is that Tibet is not economically viable on its own? Why should that matter? Is it a kind of modern white man's burden that China is taking up to modernise Tibet? If the vast majority of the Tibetan people see themselves as a seperate nation, why should they be denied the right of autonomy.
I can only relate to my own history, in Ireland, which was a seperate nation but denied independence because ''they can't govern themselves''. This argument is irrelevant, sure Tibet might not be well off economically due to independence but why deny the will of the people?

 

[aelf]

So the main argument against Tibetan independence is that Tibet is not economically viable on its own? Why should that matter? Is it a kind of modern white man's burden that China is taking up to modernise Tibet? If the vast majority of the Tibetan people see themselves as a seperate nation, why should they be denied the right of autonomy.
I can only relate to my own history, in Ireland, which was a seperate nation but denied independence because ''they can't govern themselves''. This argument is irrelevant, sure Tibet might not be well off economically due to independence but why deny the will of the people?

Yup. But some people are of the opinion that economics is everything, and that Tibetans wouldnecessarily be poor and unhappy if they are independent, not to mention somehow brought back to past feudalistic ways.

The only real reasons why Tibet should be Chinese are historical and political. But even then Tibet had fallen out of Chinese control and was only brought back in by force. So the political argument of force remains the most convincing. After all, that's how a lot of Western countries got so large. However, that kind of flies in the face of international laws, considering when it happened people had already agreed that the invasion and complete subjugation of another nation is not acceptable.

Realistically speaking, Tibet should probably not be independent due to the large numbers of Chinese people there who want China to stay. This isn't really a reason, since they were also brought in there to make this happen. And the same people who argue this point as a legitimate reason might frown at the same thing happening in the Middle East with Israeli settlers. IMO, if the Tibetans do want independence, since the Tibetan identity has not been completely wiped out, the Chinese settlers should be given the choice of Tibetan citizenship or moving back to China. But I don't like the idea of forcing people out of the land either (something which Chinese apologists are probably willing to accept if it seems necessary in a situation - for the good of the people or the nation, they would say), so this can probably not be done the right way, even if it's possible.

 

[Shekwan]

Realistically speaking, Tibet should probably not be independent due to the large numbers of Chinese people there who want China to stay. This isn't really a reason, since they were also brought in there to make this happen. And the same people who argue this point as a legitimate reason might frown at the same thing happening in the Middle East with Israeli settlers. IMO, if the Tibetans do want independence, since the Tibetan identity has not been completely wiped out, the Chinese settlers should be given the choice of Tibetan citizenship or moving back to China. But I don't like the idea of forcing people out of the land either (something which Chinese apologists are probably willing to accept if it seems necessary in a situation - for the good of the people or the nation, they would say), so this can probably not be done the right way, even if it's possible.

Again I can see parallels with my own country.Northern Ireland and all that **** To my knowledge, Tibet was independent until 1950? Did the Chinese only settle after that? If they did thats three generations of Chinese max that have lived in Tibet. I wonder what percentage of people living in the province of tibet want independence, if its a significant majority, thats the bottom line.

 

[bhsup]

IF they were born there, they are as Tibetan as anyone else born there, regardless where their grandparents came from. So their say should matter as much as anyone else's.

Don't take that comment as me caring, though. As I've said before, I honestly couldn't care about a region wanting independence from communism just so they can prop up some dictatorial holy man as their leader.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
I oppose brutal repressive feudal theocracies out of my convinction in democracy and progress.

 

[Tecibbar]

I think the biggest reason for Chinese government to control Tibet is The Mandate of Heaven. If one government can not control the territory it inherit from its predicesor, its likely to lose the Mandate of Heaven. It may sounds like BS, but I can't think of a better reason.

As for settlers, they are called "Civil Servents who assist Tibet development" in China. It's like a community services for aspiring young communist. A couple years in Tibet can really help you move up the ladder. Very few people actually stayed there and raise Children there.

 

[TheLastOne36]

Again I can see parallels with my own country.Northern Ireland and all that **** To my knowledge, Tibet was independent until 1950? Did the Chinese only settle after that? If they did thats three generations of Chinese max that have lived in Tibet. I wonder what percentage of people living in the province of tibet want independence, if its a significant majority, thats the bottom line.

IIRC Tibetans are a minority in Tibet now...

 

[Shaihulud]

IIRC Tibetans are a minority in Tibet now...

That is not true, Tibetians are not a minority in Tibet as any search on the net will show. I don't think that the main reason why some people does not think Tibet should be independent is not because of economic viability, but that they are not convinced that Tibetians want full independence. This sudden outburst from the rest of the World (and the Tibetian exiles) does not seem like a sincere. I would support Tibetian independence if I think that is what they want.

 

[aelf]

Did the Chinese only settle after that? If they did thats three generations of Chinese max that have lived in Tibet.

AFAIK, yes.

I wonder what percentage of people living in the province of tibet want independence, if its a significant majority, thats the bottom line.

I think most Tibetans want some sort full or near-to-full autonomy, which China isn't agreeing to because of at least a few known sticking points (like how it hates the Dalai Lama). I think 'Tibetan independence' and "Free Tibet" is not always referring to complete separation.

 

[Frank2386]

Wow, I never thought this thread be so popular

 

[T.c.w7468]

OK, my full opinion about Tibet.

First of all, Tibet should be a part of China (because running a new country, especially in the region where Tibet is) is extremely difficult. Because of China's presence, the area is more stable and not as vulnerable to terrorist attacks and the economic stablilty there is checked. HOWEVER... I think that China should get rid of this communist dictatorship (see my username and signature ) and turn into a balanced, somewhat democratic, controlled captialistic nation (if it was completely democratic, or unregulated captialistic, the result would be a nation like the US, filled with bad culture and greed and debt etc... with uncontrollable unruly people) democratic enough so that the government could understand what their people are really thinking (details about this belong on another forum). And as for Tibet (or any other autonomous region), they should stay under this new leadership and become autonomous to the point where the only sign of rule from the mainland is 1) no passports required 2) control of migration into/out of Tibet and China (Tibet should stay in Tibetan culture and be kept for its own people [so generally speaking, making sure not too many Chinese people go into Tibet]) 3) control of some aspects of government (such as making sure it doesn't fall into a slave state or a theocracy, but not much else) 4) direct economic aid 5) defense 6) making sure Tibetans are happy with their gov 7) there are a few other things I just can't think of them now.
If the Chinese did the best they can do but Tibet still wants to be independent, they should let them independent with a lot of aid (independent nations are hard to control, and require a lot of investment) both economically and militarily.
As for the Dalai Lama and any other exiles, I think they should be let back in Tibet.

I wonder how many people are acutally going to read the above...

 

[JohnRM]

A bit late, aren't we?

 

[zjl56]

IIRC Tibetans are a minority in Tibet now...

That is why Tibet will never gain independence in the near future. To allow Tibet to secede would violate the majority of the natives wishes. It is horrible what China did, but to allow Tibet to go free would probably result in a genocide of the ethnic Hans.