What constitutes Chinese beyond Chinese citizenship? This is not an obvious question? I identify as Chinese even though I am a naturalized US citizen. My close friend who was born in Inner Mongolia is a Canadian citizen and also identifies as Chinese. There is a Chinese diaspora all over the planet who identify as Chinese despite being citizens of other countries. Identification as Chinese is not exclusive to Chinese citizenship, but also culture, language, and/or ancestry. It is an open question whether Tibetans and Uyghurs satisfy any of the above, and even if they do, whether they would prefer to self-identify as such.
Correct, there is no data regarding exactly how many Tibetans and Uyghurs would prefer to NOT be identified as Chinese and would prefer to NOT be part of China, and I have been saying that all along. This does NOT mean that just because there isn't such information that therefore this question is "rhetorical". You seem to be suggesting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. That is a logical fallacy. People here are literally afraid to know the answer to this question and avoid it like the plague, like I said, because I suspect they might not like the answer. They talk vociferously about me not having the "moral high ground", which is an implicit acknowledgement in their heart of hearts that they have the moral low ground. I certainly don't feel the need to say anything about them having any kind of moral high ground at all.
I seriously doubt there is more than a pittance of Hawaiians who want Hawaiian independence. I raised this point simply to illustrate that increased standard of living does not automatically equate to lack of desire for political independence.
No you most certainly did not ask me "for a definition of who you think should be allowed to ask for the secession of the Tibetan province of China". Here is what you actually said: "who are these "Tibetans"? Can you provide a definition?" If you had actually wanted a narrow definition of ONLY "those Tibetans that can participate in a referendum", that is what you should have asked in the first place. Your lack of ability to ask for exactly what you want to hear is your problem, not mine.
I see. So according to your genius logic, if China conquers Japan, then the Japanese people are now inseparably and unambiguously Chinese people and Japan is now inseparably and unambiguously Chinese land, and the feelings of the Japanese people on the matter are irrelevant, and anyone daring to ask such a question is a "separatist" with "ulterior motives" and has been "brain washed" by the West. It doesn't matter how long Japan has been part of China because this is irrelevant to the discussion of whether Japanese are Chinese. 0.00001% of Japanese history? It doesn't even matter!
I can't help but laugh. Out loud.
Who says "you don't get to say" this? You? Who are you? Are you the arbiter of morality here? If India had 4 billion inhabitants then conquered China and started assimilating Chinese people, I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that you would hypocritically be on the exact opposite side of your current stance. It is only because you happen to be the part of the majority assimilating the minority that you don't really care what the minority feels about it.
In any case, I have also repeatedly said very early on in this discussion that self-determination must balance with national interest: "the balance is between the right of self-determination and the prosperity of the country", and that in that light any referendum should involve the entire country. It is not just a matter of "I want to leave therefore I am already gone", nor is it just a matter of "we don't need to ask you whether you want to leave because we don't give a shit".
I have to say, though, that if you are logically consistent, you have no right to have ANY kind of negative visceral reaction to the thought of being assimilated into either India or Japan and/or living under their thumb. And as long as they provide for you, you should just not even open your mouths.