Only a few. Your point is what? That because I haven't spoken to the entirety of the Tibetan people they all therefore want to be Chinese and be part of China? My only claim is that the question of sovereignty, citizenship, secession, is an open question that has not heretofore been honestly and directly asked. Do you mind telling how many Tibetans YOU have spoken with?
China's Greatest Fear: Dead and Buried Like the Soviet Union (Closed)
- Thread starter AndrewS
- Start date
- Status
Correct, how many you have met yourself is irrelevant to this issue, just like how many I have met myself is irrelevant to this issue. My question to you was meant to induce this understanding on your part. Clearly you were unable to achieve this.
1. This does NOT mean that Tibetans in general WISH to be considered Chinese citizens.
Pure logically you are right.
But the opposite is equally right. I put it in the same way as you say it. This does NOT mean that Tibetans in general do NOT WISH to be considered Chinese citizens. Who to tell? Surely you are not the one.
Do you agree? If you don't agree and insist that your assertion is more right, you must share your reason with us to be convincing. Short of that, you apparently do not equally apply the same logic, that is some kind of selective thinking which is likely to be due to brain washing.
2. Comparing your ridiculous analogy to Americans.
It is ONLY "ridiculous" IF one takes the position that you took in "1.". That is "Tibetans is NOT Chinese" therefor the comparison of "Tibetan-Chinese" and "New Yorker - American" becomes "ridiculous".
Again, it shows that you have taken a firm position that "Tibetan is not Chinese", you then made all your thinking and talking based on that premise.
You need to grow a thicker skin. And also read some of the posts that have been written against me. But since you obviously agree with them your personal perceptions of what is rude and arrogant aren't exactly unbiased on this issue, so your accusations here are utterly meaningless to me.
I love how people like you love to throw this accusation of "brain washing" around when it is so obvious you are the ones who are brainwashed, and willing so. Please link and quote where I made ANY definitive statement(s) to the effect that Tibetans do or do not wish to be considered Chinese. Go ahead. Try me.
Again, I have NEVER taken a firm position that "Tibetan is not Chinese". You only think this because you are the one who has been brainwashed by the CCP into swallowing the opposite view lock, stock, and barrel, so that anyone who doesn't think exactly like you is believed to be fomenting secessionism, splittism, or whatever other paranoia you have been indoctrinated with.
You forgot what you just said in your own post #69. The two underlined texts in my post were your own words. I quote you again and have the two lines in bold text.
solarz
Brigadier
The fact that you lack the ability to understand the standard definition of Tibetan does not equate to me not understanding it. Why should this definition include Chinese citizenship? Doing so would exclude a criteria that you yourself just demanded: "foreign citizens that happen to be ethnic Tibetan." ROFLMAO My definition is the standard definition of Tibetan and does not have to include what citizenship a Tibetan holds because they could be ethnic Tibetan and hold Zimbabwen or Australian or Swedish citizenship. So I have include these people too in the definition? How much more ridiculous can you get? When the definition states "ethnic group" it does NOT require a member of this ethnic group to have been born inside Tibet itself. "Native to Tibet" simply means the ethnicity itself has its roots in Tibet. Just like Chinese Americans who are born in the US are still ethnically Chinese but citizens of the US. BTW you never gave your own definition of Tibetan. I would really like to see that one.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Do you, or do you not, need to hold Chinese citizenship to participate in a hypothetical independence referendum? In your first definition, you clearly did not include that as a criteria, and in the response above, you seem to jump between yes and no so quickly that I have no idea what you're talking about.
As for my definition, it's this: a Tibetan is a Chinese citizen who is registered as a member of the Tibetan ethnicity.
Ok sure, there's no point in debating about this any further when you start splitting hair like this.
I agree with you on this one. To add a few examples to your point that Han is not barred in high positions. I would say that in Yuan, the ethnity of individual did not play any role in promoting, if it ever played any role at all. However, you are confusing me with your stands, I will explain at the end after the examples.
[example]
1. , a Khitan, was the imperial Chancellor of Yuan dynasty during Kublai's rein. That is a position only under the Emperor himself. High enough in your view? He is a Han in Yuan's caste system. Han is the third caste out of four, low enough in your view? Now you can make your own judgement, is Han barred from the highest governing apparatus? My judgement is, NO.
2. , a Han, was another Chancellor of Yuan, predecessor of Yelu Chucai.
3. , a Han, brought up by Shi Tianze, was a general who served for Yuan. He was involved in the defeat of Song dynasty to the south. He commanded the artillery corps of the Mongols that broke the wall of Baghdad in 1258 under the command of Hulagu. If you call Hulagu as the field marshal, then Guo Kan is a full general. (a note to the wiki page though, Guo Kan was instrumental in the sacking of Baghdad, but whether he became the governor of Baghdad afterwards were not clear as I have not come across Yuan's official records to prove it.).
[/example]
[side infor]
Han as a caste class, (later on became the foundation of Han ethnic definition), is first officially recognized by Yuan dynasty (in 1300s). That is pretty late, isn't it?
was a Sinicized Khitan, a proto Mongol people. You can see that from his name. But he is put into Han. That means Han was a mix, a big mix. Included in Han were all people in Northern China who were not Mongol tribes under the Khan (Emperors) direct command up till the time of Yuan's establishment, that includes the proto-Han, Khitan (Mongolic, ex Liao Dynasty), Jurchen (Manchu's ancestor, ex Jin Dynasty) and some other Mongols who fought against the Borjigin leadership.
The fourth caste was "southerners", including any people of ex Song Dynasty and Dali Kingdom in the south. These include proto Han and Yue (related to Vietnamese) and Dai (related to Thai) etc. in south west China.
[/side infor]
All the examples above tell one thing and one thing only, that is in China, Race/Nation/Ethnity has no role in being a member of the empire, the state, the country and the citizen.
So I am very confused by you.
On the one hand you seem to say (in my impression) that Han and non-Hans are distinct, separate, should be separated (by referendum or self determination or whatever western BS). The evidence is your rejection of plawolf's comparison between Londonner/British and Tibetan(or Mongols for that mater)/Chinese.
On the other hand, you seem to subscribe to the idea that China is and should be kept in one piece regardless ethnity proven by your view of Yuan's inclusive policy.
Which one is really your stand?
Perhaps English is not your first language and so you could be forgiven for not understanding clearly that what I said here: "This does NOT mean that Tibetans in general WISH to be considered Chinese citizens" does not in any way conflict with what I said here: "Please link and quote where I made ANY definitive statement(s) to the effect that Tibetans do or do not wish to be considered Chinese." My first statement is deliberately ambiguous as to what Tibetans themselves want exactly, because well, we DON'T exactly know. Why? Because people like you and the CCP do not want to know the answer and do not want to even ask the question in the first place, presumably because you are afraid of it. My second statement is a confirmation that I have in fact NOT made any definitive statements about what Tibetans feel about their "Chineseness".
Your lack of idea as to what I'm saying represents confusion or incapability on your part, not on mine. Defining what is "Tibetan" is NOT the same as defining who gets to vote in a hypothetical referendum. I find it rather frightening that you are unable to grasp this simple concept. Tibetan Americans would certainly not get to vote. Tibetan Indians would also not get to vote. Tibetans living in China as Chinese citizens would get to vote because they would be deciding on the future of China.
This makes me laugh very hard because you literally FAILED one of your very own requirements: "and does not include foreign citizens that happen to be ethnic Tibetan" which you tried to catch me on. You failed your own fail criticism ROFLMAO. So either your definition is fail or your criticism is fail; which one would you prefer? Now try harder.
Thank you for acknowledging that your claim that the Mongols forbade Hans from "holding power" is a patently false assertion.
I can also add the famous Zheng He who was a Hui official responsible for the famous Ming naval voyages before the idiot emperor in charge burnt down all the ships and shipyards. So what? The fact that you can name some examples of minority officials during a given Han dynasty (or Han officials during the Yuan and/or Qing dynasty) makes no difference to my assertion that during the vast majority of China's history, it was the Han who ruled the land, and also that the history of China is mostly a history of the Han. Through merit some minority people rose through the ranks and became high and famous officials, but this does nothing to change the fact that the Han ethnicity was still the overwhelming vast majority of the polity, even including during the Qing and the Yuan dynasties.
Hans and non-Hans are distinct, obviously (unless it's frighteningly not so obvious to you). Acknowledging the fact that they are different is NOT the same as advocating that they should be separated regardless of circumstances, and I have not been claiming this at ANY point. What should have become painfully obvious to you by now were it not for your indoctrination is that the question has not even been asked of whether they do or not want to be Chinese and part of China, to speak nothing of the actual act of secession itself. But you guys seem to want to invent every kind of excuse in the world to avoid the question of whether Tibetans (and Uyghurs) feel or want to feel that they are Chinese, like it makes absolutely no difference what they want or do not want. Solarz over there thinks that a history of conquest and control of 26.8% of a people's history makes them inseparably Chinese and their historic homeland inseparably Chinese, whether or not they want to be considered as such. Like I asked you before but you conveniently ignored, is marriage at gunpoint really a marriage? I think the question should at least be entertained. But clearly you don't think it should. Why?
WTH are you even talking about here? How does my view of Yuan's inclusive policy say even a single thing about whether or not I feel that "China is and should be kept in one piece regardless of ethnicity"?
- Status