From: joe@astro.as.utexas.edu (Joe Wang)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.china
Subject: Re: Conference: Sino-Tibetan Relations: Prospects for the Future
Date: 8 Oct 92 03:26:31 GMT
Organization: McDonald Observatory, University of Texas @ Austin

In article <BvFLz2.Mn2@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> richter@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (C. Richter) writes:
>Mongolia takes over China in 1280 and suddenly China "owns" Tibet; I
>don't understand the logic. 

That's because non-Han dynasties such as the Mongols and the Manchus
are considered as "Chinese" as Han-ruled dynasties.

It's important here to remember that Westerners sometimes misuse the
term Chinese to refer to the majority Han ethnicity.  It's possible to
be non-Han and Chinese.

>What matters is what the Tibetan people want now.  The Tibetan people 
>want control of their own country.  The Chinese people want Tibet as a 
>colony.  

I'm all for a "Tibet for the Tibetan Chinese" policy.  The question is
whether this necessarily means an independent Tibet.  If it's possible
(and I suspect that it is) to have a Tibetan ruled part of China
without being independent, then I favor this solution.  

What's really, really annoying about your postings is that you
discount any such settlements out of hand.  That raises suspicions
about "ulterior motives."  

>I have a question: If China so irrefutably "owns" Tibet, then why does 
>China carry on with the charade of calling Xizang the "Tibet 
>Autonomous Region?"  How can China "own" Tibet and then say Tibet is 
>"autonomous?"  

You might ask the some question to the Spanish in regard to Catalona.

>Do you think that there might be 
>"standard" Japanese maps from the 1930s and 40s that show Japanese-
>occupied areas as belonging to Japan?

"Standard" Japanese maps from the 1930's and 40's show Manchuria as an
"independent" state, and divide the rest of China into two or three
other "independent" states. 

The Japanese were smart enough to realize that if they tried to
incorporate China into Japan, then Japan would be incorpoated into
China.  Japanese policy toward China was to try and divide China up
into various feuding regions under the guise of "independence and
self-determination."

Do you now see why talking about Tibet "independence" scares the
living daylights out of many Chinese?

>Sounds like paranoia.  But this is the first I have heard anyone suggest 
>that Tibetans are superior to Chinese.  

There is a "xungen" (roots) movement in China which asserts that the
traditional Han culture is dead and that there ought to be a new
Chinese culture comprised from the minority peoples and dialect
literature.  

>I speculate that the Sikkimese felt 
>threatened by the Chinese, especially after the Yanks left Vietnam.  
>Remember, China invaded Ladhak in the early 1960s and has held parts 
>of it ever since.  If I were a Sikkimese I would have worried too. 

If you were Sikkimese, you made a bad choice then.  There are about
six million Tibetans and about nine hundred million Han Chinese.  If
the central government wanted to, if could wipe out Tibetan culture
simply by encouraging immigration into Tibet.  It has not done so.
Han immigration (according to Melvin Goldstein) is confined to the
major cities, and Han Chinese have not tried to displace Tibetans from
their traditional occupations. 

Indeed, Mr. Goldstein mentions that Tibetans outside of the major
cities have a more positive attitude toward the Central Government
because most of the cadres they meet are Tibetan.

>Well, with a Chinese name already in place, when do you think China 
>will take over Zhe-Meng-Xiong?  

>China has already had success against 
>India in taking parts of Ladhak, so what is holding China back?

China does not think of itself as an expansionist power.  It has a
border which consists of the areas it controlled under the Qing
dynasty minus Outer Mongolia.  With only two exceptions, Chinese
troops have not left what it considers its borders, and in both of
these cases (Korea in 1950 and Vietnam in 1979), Chinese troops have
left quickly.

>As for the preservation of the Tibetan language and Buddhist religion 
>in Tibet, China's policy has done great damage since China invaded
>in the 1950s.  The Tibetan language enjoys second class status in 
>Tibet, as Chinese is the primary medium of instruction and most good 
>jobs are impossible without Chinese. 

Wrong.

Tibetan is the medium of instruction in primary and junior high
schools, and the central government is planning on making Tibetan the
primary language for all education (primary to college) by 2000.  It
is true that a Tibetan needs to know Mandarin to function on a
national level, but the same is true of a Cantonese speaker, and they
all need to know English to function on an international level.

One problem with Tibet is that while Tibetans are being taught in
Tibetan, Han Chinese are being taught in Mandarin.  This increases
ethnic separation and increases tensions.

>I hate to say it but this suggests that you have no credible argument 
>against Tibet winning its independence.  The Chinese position is 
>fundamentally and morally bankrupt.  

The position of most people on the net is that no part of China has
the right to secede.  Under some cases secession may be justified, but
only as a last resort.  In any event, I think it is foolish to talk
about independence before other alternatives are tried and rejected.

How is this a morally bankrupt position? 

>The Tibetan people have suffered very greatly under Chinese rule.

Han people have suffered very greatly under Chinese rule. 

>The Tibetan people do not want to be colonized by the Chinese.  

It is the position of many of the people in this discussion that
Tibetan people are Chinese.  Not wanting to be overrun by Han Chinese
is an understandable feeling, but independence is not the only, and
may not be the best solution to this problem.