China's terrirotial loses and claims + Importance.

Maggern said:

Tibet was, in fact, independent for most of the early 1900s, which I think is what many Americans refer to, when they think of Tibet as an independent nation invaded by China. During this period, many provinces and local warlords were de facto independent from Beijing and governed their own little "countries". Tibet was reclaimed along other warlords and separatists in the latter 40s. However, during their short run of full independence, Tibet also signed a deal with Great Britain to cede a large swathe of land in southern Tibet (known as Arunachal Pradesh in India) to the British Crown. China of course doesn't recognize this deal as it doesn't recognize Tibet's legitimacy to sign such a treaty, hence there is a large amount of disputed territory around Tibet today.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's the "independence" that Tibet Separatists love to crow about. Of course, when they claim that the PRC "invaded" Tibet in the 1950's, they conveniently ignore the fact that the ROC also claims Tibet as a part of China.

Schumacher said:

Just a minor correction, Tibet is actually a part of China since at least the Yuan Dynasty. That's more than 1000 years ago. So going by the logic of reverting to historical territory, the entire North America should be returned to the Natives, not just Hawaii, Texas, Nebraska, Philadelphia.
Please continue.

Click to expand...

Just a minor correction, The Chagatai took over Tibet after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty had very little to do with Tibet.

but as Solarz says in post 8

" n the end, none of that matters. Territoriality isn't settled by debates about "rights". It's settled by power. So long as China has her might, no one is going to split her up, no matter how much publicity they get. "


however as a sidenote it appears that the Han claim to Tibet is mainly through the Mongols. right? Well on that basis should'nt you also be claiming Turkey and most of Russia?

To make such a claim over simplifies and shows a lack of ignorance of the basic political structure of the Mongolian empire.

Besides the sovereignty of China over Tibet continued by each subsequent dynasty.

bladerunner said:

Just a minor correction, The Chagatai took over Tibet after the fall of the Yuan Dynasty, the Ming Dynasty had very little to do with Tibet.
..........
however as a sidenote it appears that the Han claim to Tibet is mainly through the Mongols. right? Well on that basis should'nt you also be claiming Turkey and most of Russia?

Click to expand...

Even if you're right with the Chagatai, the fact still is Tibet has been in China for far longer than North America, and NZ for that matter, have been the countries that they are today.
You got confused with the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan and the Yuan Dynasty under Kublai Khan but if you want to insist China lay claims to Turkey and Russia, you should tell them.

bladerunner said:

however as a sidenote it appears that the Han claim to Tibet is mainly through the Mongols.

Click to expand...

I think you are deliberately misleading the issue here. There is no "Han claim to Tibet". There is only the "Chinese sovereignty over Tibet".

The "Han" do not claim Tibet, just as the Anglo-Saxons do not claim Quebec.

And since Tibet already belongs to China, there is no "claim".

bladerunner said:

however as a sidenote it appears that the Han claim to Tibet is mainly through the Mongols. right? Well on that basis should'nt you also be claiming Turkey and most of Russia?

Click to expand...

Han is only one of many many ethnic groups in China and it does not represent China.
So even if "Han did not claim Tibet", it does not mean Tibet is not part of China since other ethic groups could claim Tibet when they ruled China.

solarz said:

I think you are deliberately misleading the issue here. There is no "Han claim to Tibet". There is only the "Chinese sovereignty over Tibet".

The "Han" do not claim Tibet, just as the Anglo-Saxons do not claim Quebec.

And since Tibet already belongs to China, there is no "claim".

Click to expand...

You are mistaken as I was not using the word Han in reference to "Modern China" but 13th century China where people may have seen themselves as distinctly different.. where referring to everybody as Chinese would not have been acceptable. Would a Mongol official in the "Yuan" court tolerate being referred to as Chinese?..... and what of the people in the other regions that once made up the Tibeten empire but was now under Yuan/China /Mongol control. How did they see themselves?

Player 0 said:

To make such a claim over simplifies and shows a lack of ignorance of the basic political structure of the Mongolian empire.

Besides the sovereignty of China over Tibet continued by each subsequent dynasty.

Click to expand...

After refreshing my memory from reading Wikis description (which I think is fairly objective) of the Ming Tibetean relationship, Ill stick with what I said.
Putting it in another way, the Mongols under various khalinates , continued to be a thorn in Chinas side, especially when it came to managing Tibet.

Schumacher said:

Even if you're right with the Chagatai, the fact still is Tibet has been in China for far longer than North America, and NZ for that matter, have been the countries that they are today.
You got confused with the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan and the Yuan Dynasty under Kublai Khan but if you want to insist China lay claims to Turkey and Russia, you should tell them.

Click to expand...

Well there are people who maintain that for much of the time, the relationship was very much like a vassal state with a fair degree of independence. It was not until 1751, during the reign of the Qianlong Emperor (r. 1735–1796), a protectorate and permanent Qing Dynasty garrison was established in Tibet.[105][156] As of 1751, Albert Kolb writes that "Chinese claims to suzerainty over Tibet date from this time."[156] (source wiki) so from that angle , its history is certainly shorter than that of Americas and not much more than N.Z's

This also brings me to another point.
While rebuffing comments made by some on the China/Tibet situation others and yourself often point to the Wests colonisation of America Australia NZ etc. IMO this is like comparing apples with oranges. While Tibet was a established sovereign state/ Kingdom with an established structure, the continents of Australia and America which were inhabitated by people not much more advanced than the neolithic age, was not. Meanwhile the Maoris who trace their ancestory to groups of people who left Hawaii and therefore not indigenous to NZ, invited British rule and colonisation.

bladerunner said:

While Tibet was a established sovereign state/ Kingdom with an established structure, the continents of Australia and America which were inhabitated by people not much more advanced than the neolithic age, was not.

Click to expand...

The proper comparison is with the way areas like Brittany and Burgundy were incorporated into France.

Meanwhile the Maoris who trace their ancestory to groups of people who left Hawaii and therefore not indigenous to NZ, invited British rule and colonisation.

Click to expand...

The Maoris entered an uninhabited country a thousand years ago. And why would they have invited British rule and colonisation if it was not under the threat of overwhelming violence?