Divide and rule has been the British Empire's method maintaining their dominance. Sri Lanka was one of the better examples. Pax Americana retained that tradition
China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
Divide and rule has been the British Empire's method maintaining their dominance. Sri Lanka was one of the better examples. Pax Americana retained that tradition
It does indeed. And?
I'm sorry, are we on the Hawaiian Defense Forum? Or the Guam Defense Forum? or the Ryuku Defense Forum? We are talking about this exact issue and not other cases of sovereignty because we are on the SINODefense Forum. If you want to talk about Hawaiian independence, then get your ass over to or some other similar site. Yes, it is in fact a Hawaiian independence forum. Also I don't have some kind of "zeal" about Tibetan or Uyghur independence. It's not very high on my radar to be perfectly honest. I think issues of self-determination should be discussed in the wider context of how it might affect the rest of the country, which is why I have always thought that secession from a body requires the consent of the entire body. Here I have merely expressed an opinion which happens to be different from your opinion, and it's very clear that some of you have subsequently decided to become exquisitely butthurt that such an opinion should possibly dare to be expressed in your vicinity. And yes, if Hawaiians and the rest of the US can all agree that Hawaiians should be allowed to become independent, then it should be so. Same for Ryukus and whatever the hell else you mentioned.
What a senseless straw man attack. Please go ahead and link and quote exactly where I stipulated or even merely implied that “the governing body of a nation must somehow be representative of the demographics of the general population.” What I have said is that the governing body should have at least the explicit or even merely implicit consent of the governed to rule (whether that be Han or minority). I have also stated that contrary to your irrelevant statement that PRC was not founded on the rule of a particular ethnicity, it IS in fact even if not in intent founded on the rule of the Han majority as its institutions are almost all staffed by the Han majority. The history of China is more or less the history of the Han. You are hopelessly mixing up lack of deliberate or explicit ethnically-based rule with the facts on the ground of actual ethnic rule.
Yes, yes, it’s a meritocracy. We all know that. So what? By sheer numbers Han will statistically be represented in far greater numbers than minorities. Their socioeconomic status may additionally skew their representation downwards. Again, I am not saying that the government deliberately discriminates against ethnic minorities for positions or even that the government should be required to have statistically accurate minority representation.
“As harmonious as can be”, eh? Here I snickered a little. Your skill at spindoctoring/butchering the meaning of “harmony” is not bad, I must say. In the context of history, no less. LOL Sure, sure, if you want to call it “harmony” that one people completely conquered another people resulting in approximately 25 MILLION deaths, and THEN assimilated into that people, I guess that should be called “harmony”, then. BTW, the Qing conquest is ranked as the eighth highest war death toll in all of world history, after WWII, Mongol Conquest, Taiping Rebellion, War of the Three Kingdoms, Conquest of the Americas, Mughal Conquest, and the second Sino-Japanese War.
Did you just forget how to do math or something? 13th century to 21st century spans almost 800 years. Of the last 776 years since the Yuan, Tibet has been under Chinese rule for a total of 372 years, and NOT “continuously”; I have absolutely no idea where you got “nearly 300 years of continuous rule from because this is just patently false. 114 years under the Mongols, followed by a break of 366 years of self-rule, followed by 192 years of Qing rule, followed by a break of 38 years of self-rule, followed by 66 years of PRC rule. You are also of course conveniently choosing to forget the establishment of a distinct Tibetan nation and people since the 7th century (627 AD). Starting from that date, that would be 1,389 years of a people known as “Tibetans”, 372 years of which were on and off ruled by the Chinese. That’s about 26.8% of their history. Does that qualify them to be unambiguously and inseparably Chinese? It’s an open question for me (and I don’t know that there is a definitive answer), though obviously not for you LOL
Clearly your ideal is also not my ideal, and I’ll thank you not to impose your ideals upon me.
I agree that the province of Tibet is not asking for secession. People like you don’t want to even allow Tibetans to ask it in the first place. How dare they, amiright?
Here you bring up a relevant point, but a point which I have already pointed out. Yes, who gets to vote, who gets to decide, and which territories are “eligible”? These are thorny questions to begin with, and on top of that these questions will soon be rendered utterly moot by the migration of Han settlers into both Xinjiang and Tibet. It won’t matter at all in a generation or two once the Han population in the respective regions attain a majority such that even a hypothetical plebiscite would return a negative result. Is this mass migration morally right or wrong? I do not know the answer and have not tried to answer this question in this thread.
Your cynicism is amusing even if totally misapplied.
Huh??? I obviously don’t know what you’re thinking.
I’m sure not all blacks or Native Americans want to be called Americans. Just like not all Tibetans and Uyghurs want to be called Chinese. My question to you is “how many want to be called Chinese”? Your answer seems to be “the vast majority of them”. Oh really? Surely you must have a poll result which tells you this. PLEASE PRODUCE A LINK TO THIS POLL. Or is this percentage what your “heart” is “telling” you? BTW, I am not claiming that Tibetans and Uyghurs aren’t “Chinese citizens”. Clearly they are Chinese citizens by virtue of living within the territory of the PRC and being deemed as such by the Chinese government and the rest of the world. This is irrelevant to the question of whether they in general WANT to be “Chinese citizens”, or even the more amorphous term “Chinese people”.
BTW, your straw man attacks are getting utterly tiresome. My question is not illegitimate just because you are offended at its being asked. I am not trying to attack the CCP “in any way” I can; in fact I think currently the CCP is better for China than any of the other political systems in the world, the operative word being “currently”. In time there will need to be more accountability to the masses in one form or another, not necessarily in the form of direct or even representative democracy, but certainly more than it is now.
“Hypothetical”, really? Have you been sleeping through the last few years or what? How about the Brexit referendum? How about the Scottish referendum?
This essentially boils down to a mass ad hominem attack which you have absolutely no way of proving would be a general public response or even official governmental response in any random country X to a “hypothetical” referendum in country Y. No doubt there are actually people in the world who are deluded enough to believe that a poll which says the vast majority of Chinese support the CCP must be wrong or rigged in some fashion. However, this has absolutely nothing to do with an official referendum or the reception of it by the rest of the world.
Like I said, this is a thorny issue. However, right now (as of 2011 at least) the TAR contains 90.5% Tibetan ethnicity and the rest are mostly Han ethnicity. BTW TAR is not actually a province , it is an “autonomous region” just like Xinjiang, and if indeed the Chinese government allowed the TAR by itself to hold a referendum but then flooded the place with Han “voters”, the rest of the world would rightly accuse it of duplicity. On the other hand, as I have already stated, my personal view is that a region deciding on secession should be required to have the consent of the entire country since their exit affects the well-being of the rest of the country, so in my world the Chinese government wouldn’t even have to ship in voters from out of region, they would vote in place as one body to decide the fate of the region in question.
This is a total non sequitur. A successful referendum simply allows the new nation to choose whatever form of government it wants to. If it chooses to install a new dictator-for-life or elect a new president or choose a new governing council, or whatever else, then that’s the way it shall be.
I am well aware that the concept of being Chinese is not exactly the same as being Han (shared culture, language, values, governance, etc.) But it is almost the same as being Han. About 91% the same.
You clearly have not been reading my posts carefully before responding to them because I pointed out this same fact several posts ago.
One of the rallying cries of the Ming rebels, particularly that of Zhu Yuanzhang, the leader of the Red Turbans and the eventual Hongwu Emperor, was in fact to expel the Mongol foreigners and restore Han rule. Why would they think this way if they thought that the Mongols were Chinese? Similarly, the White Lotus Rebellion was led and supported by people who don’t think in your way as they advocated the expulsion of the Manchus and restoration of Ming-era Han rule. Why would they think this way if they thought that the Manchus were Chinese?
Who said China is or has to be a nation state? China is certainly a multiethnic state that shares the traits I described for you above, though like I said before it is mostly a Han state. UK and India are other examples. You’re unnecessarily beating on a straw man.
EVERYONE in China? Really? LOL you just flatly and unambiguously contradicted yourself. First you say that China is not a nation state but then go on here to define China as EXACTLY a nation state by way of common ancestry and shared blood. Might I remind you that calling China a nation state is borderline racism as it “defines right of people to a piece of land by blood (race).” Care to revise your statement?
First, you seem to be claiming that it is meaningless to look at things in a black and white fashion because historically they are complicated, and yet utterly fail to demonstrate how a dichotomous presentation of “Han vs Uyghur rule” or “migrants vs indigenous” is actually meaningless. You simply say that’s it’s too complicated to dichotomize therefore it’s meaningless to dichotomize. No, it’s not really complicated at all, actually. Okay, now your turn.
Second, you seem to be claiming that you should not be allowed to divorce self-governance from economic sustainability. Actually you can. I just did. Boom. Can the Tibetans sustain their own economy independent of the rest of China? Maybe, maybe not. There is no question the rest of the country provides large amounts of material and financial support to the local economy and that sudden withdrawal of that support could have bad consequences for the locals. Sure, that sounds reasonable. But what if India, or the US, or the UK, or the MARTIANS, provided economic support to a newly independent Tibet? What would you say then, could I divorce economy from governance? The idea of whether a group of people have a right to self-determination is not causally or theoretically wedded to whether they can sustain an economic independence post political independence. In the real world the actual discussion of secession would of course be accompanied by discussions of economics (just like they did with the Scottish referendum), but this does NOT mean that if economic independence is unfeasible that the question of political independence cannot be raised, only that it should probably not be concluded until a viable economic plan is in place as well.
All I did was put some context out there, that is the "and". Just because this is the Sinodefense forum doesn't mean China exists unaffected by the state of the world, to discuss internationally widespread and controversial issues such as independence and sovereignty purely limiting it to China can be misleading and is certainly not as informative as it can be.
solarz
Brigadier
Ok, what exactly is your point then? You acknowledge that the PRC is not founded on the rule of any particular ethnicity, so by definition, it is not a Han rule. Just because the vast majority of US politicians are white christians, does not make the US a white christian rule.
And how many of those deaths happened because of the assimilation? The Manchu were not assimilating themselves during their conquest. They did so after, in order to consolidate their rule.
Quibble with the numbers all you want, but some 400 years of Chinese rule, continuous or not, makes Tibet a part of Chinese history. "Chinese" does not mean "Han". The Tibetans were never under Han rule, and neither were the Mongols and the Manchus. Tibet is as "unambiguously and inseparably Chinese" as Inner Mongolia and Northwestern China.
You were the one claiming that "in an ideal world", such-and-such should happen.
Again, who are these "Tibetans"? Can you provide a definition?
Like I said, if you cannot even determine the total set, then any questions about proportions of that set is utterly irrelevant.
As a Hong Kong people, what i think iron man is talking or asking about is the same as the famous question i have been frequently asked about "Do you think you are a Hong Kongese or a Chinese?" To me, and maybe most Hong Kong people, this question is trying to separate the inseparable.
Yes, by logic, these are two different things and seems to be mutually exclusive, but in Chinese culture they are just the same thing or they differentiate people not in the same way as western culture.
Yes, by logic, these are two different things and seems to be mutually exclusive, but in Chinese culture they are just the same thing or they differentiate people not in the same way as western culture.
That is ONLY your assertion, in your western lens. It is why the two terms got equated by westerner. That is EXACTLY I disagree with you.
So apparently, we reached different conclusion from the same fact? Because the foundation of thinking is different?
The two parts above together actually tells that the 91% is a mix that settled and came around to be seen as one only recently. It is an ongoing progress and should not and will not stop and freeze to keep the other 9% separate forever (in the Chinese mind).
All I want to tell you (which is our difference, am I wrong about you?) is that the mix is an ongoing process since the beginning of China and it is and should continue. It is meaningless to emphasize the past and present differences (between ethnic groups) in Chinese context. Not only it is meaningless but it is against the Chinese idea.
The rallying cry could be true (I have heard of it). But you ignored the fact that the Ming put Yuan in the official history as legitimate dynasty that Ming itself inherited the mandate of heaven. You know who wrote and compiled "元史", do you?
Regarding White Lotus, I have not much respect as they are a secret religious sect. Whatever they call or think does carry weight to me. What counts is the official position of ROC which replaced Qing, and following PRC. Both republics recognizes Qing as legitimate Chinese dynasty, that is all I care. Mind you White Lotus does not have positive position in PRC books at least, it is regarded close to bandit.
So you are agreeing with me that China is not a nation state.
But then you continue on to say the following implying that I am defining China as a nation state which is not what I meant.
A nation state (the western concept created after 1700s) is NOT the SAME as shared common ancestry in the Chinese concept. Once again your interpretation of my (Chinese concept) shows that you are using the western lens to read Chinese.EVERYONE in China? Really? LOL you just flatly and unambiguously contradicted yourself. First you say that China is not a nation state but then go on here to define China as EXACTLY a nation state by way of common ancestry and shared blood. Might I remind you that calling China a nation state is borderline racism as it “defines right of people to a piece of land by blood (race).” Care to revise your statement?
No, I am not contradicting, it is you applying (once again) western concept on Chinese mind. That's how you got the argument with others in the first place.
Let me replace Nation with Family to illustrate.
My claim of common ownership of the same land does NOT try to eliminate the difference between "Nation" or "People". It is different people with shared bound, family A with family B sharing land/property because A's Son married B's daughter, still two family "Nation/Ethnity/People" whatever you like to call.
A Western "Nation" state is opposite, it is family A and B does not share land/property even there is intermarriage. the two family remains separated.
One last try to tell you the difference in mind set. I once had a conversation with a western person. We talked about family relationship, visiting relatives. Suddenly the person realized that there was a misunderstanding of the word "family", so he asked me "what do you mean by family?", I told him "My grandparents, nephew, nice, uncle, ante, cousin etc.". He then said "that is extended family" in west and not really regarded as one's family, family in the west is "one, his wife and children". I told him "Chinese don't make that much difference although there is closeness and remoteness". This is to show you that basic concepts from Family to People are quite different from China to the West. So don't try to judge from your own spot.
solarz
Brigadier
Yes, exactly.
When a question is phrased in a way that implicitly emphasizes a separation of concepts that are not actually separate in reality, it shows that the person or organization asking that question has ulterior motives. They are not really interested in your answer, they just want you to accept their premise.
Oh just go ahead and pick what you want to hear and ignore everything else I said. Yes, while the PRC is not explicitly founded on the rule of any particular ethnicity (what country is???), it is essentially Han-based rule because the Han make up the overwhelming vast majority of the political apparatus.
BTW, you obviously do not live in the US or you wouldn’t have said what you said here. Either that or you are just utterly clueless. Like the PRC, the US also was NOT founded explicitly on the basis of ethnicity. However, if you know ANYTHING about US history (I guess you don’t), then you would know that the US has most definitely been essentially a “white Christian” rule. From the 3/5 Compromise to the Trail of Tears to the Chinese Exclusion Act to the Japanese Internment to Jim Crow to the KKK and the modern alt right movement etc. etc. etc. (there are SO many more I haven’t mentioned), the history of the US is literally festooned with White-based rule. Does the US Constitution say a single damn thing about whites having the right to lord over all other peoples to their detriment? No, it doesn’t. So what’s your point?
I find your desperate attempt to divorce the 25 million deaths due to the Manchu invasion from the subsequent Manchu assimilation to be quite humorous, especially since this assimilation wouldn’t have even happened if this invasion did not occur.
So you feel that a people who’s entwinement with China constitutes only 26.8% of their history (and whose general desire to actually be called Chinese remains an open question) makes them somehow unambiguously and inseparably Chinese. ROFLMAO thanks for your opinion. We all have one.
We have all been discussing our ideal worlds, whether you spoke those words or not, so your bluster about me not pushing my ideal world on you is nothing but that: bluster.
An ethnic group that is native to Tibet and speaks a Tibetic language. I struggle to see how this elementary definition is somehow able to elude you.
I already told you but you obviously have chosen to ignore whatever doesn’t suit you. At minimum the TAR would be the “total set” and this region could hold a "hypothetical" referendum.
- Status