Talk:Tibet/Archive 3

The Immigration Issue

All too often, I hear this sort of rhetoric from Free Tibet supporters:

"All these Chinese people coming in, exploiting the economic growth, monopolizing all the benefits, etc. etc. Soon... we'll be a minority in our own land, blah blah blah... we don't want their kind here, blah blah blah..."

Doesn't that sound eerily familar to those anti-immigrant/white supremacist bigots you hear in the US? "We don't want so many of them coming here, taking all our jobs, milking the system, breeding here to get citizenship, 'mudding up' our race, etc...."

This sentiment (I might say even racist) is evident under certain sections in this article as well. I am not saying it should be removed or even edited (as it is only one POV), but I think there needs to be ANOTHER POV to this particular issue from the Chinese side. PRC citizens are human beings and have the moral right to travel within their OWN country when seeking opportunities like you and I. They are not simply leeches as Tibetan separatists writing in this article are trying to portray them.--Lssah 88 16:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have certainly thought of the parallels between these issues, but I don't really remember seeing it mentioned anywhere, which implies that perhaps not so many people have thought about it. However, I don't really see the point of bringing U.S. immigration policy, white supremacism, etc. into the discussion. The fact of the matter is that just about every single country in the world restricts immigration, most more stringently than the United States. And they certainly would all try to restrict immigration if there was a possibility that a group of outsiders equal to or greater than the current population was going to move in and change the political system; this is precisely the situation that Tibet is facing. Can you imagine what would happen if, for example, several hundred million people from India started moving into China and seemed interested in affecting the political process? There would be an approximately 0% chance that the PRC government would fail to at least try to stop them. (Personally, I have rather unusual views on the immigration question, but, of course, my personal views are not relevant to this article at all. It just seems disingenuous to criticise Tibet for wanting to do what literally any other country on Earth would try to do in the same position).

You say, "PRC citizens have the right to travel where ever they want in their OWN country...", but here you simply assume the answer to the question, "Is Tibet part of China?", which is, in fact, the subject of vigorous debate.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 16:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment: You writePRC citizens have the right to travel where ever they want in their OWN country... Really? Can a Tibetan simply decide to go to Bejing and register to live there whenever he wants to? Of course not.

The assumptions I am making is that the PRC currently exerts sovereignty over Tibet and this is legally recognized internationally including the UN and major relevant countries which had initially refused recognition (India and US namely). One can simply grab an atlas from the library to see that Tibet is shown nominally as part of the PRC and not as "territory under illegal occupation" or something similar. Regardless, the question of whether Tibet is part of China can be debated based on a moral and political standpoint, I am debating on the latter. Given that framework, any person born within the PRC naturally have the right to travel within PRC borders. By saying PRC citizens (Han and non-Han likewise) shouldn't be able to travel to autonomous regions because it might threaten the culture of that region, it's tantamount to suppressing freedom of travel. The rights of Tibetans and Han Chinese goes both ways. --Lssah 88 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is true and provable that the PRC exerts sovereignty over Tibet and that its sovereignty is recognised by the UN, the United States, and India. This has everything to do with the fact that they are in effective control there. However, when you start talking about people's right to freedom of travel, you are now addressing the question of what is right, which is something else entirely. I agree that preventing PRC citizens from living in Tibet limits their freedom of travel, but, as I've said, every country on Earth would limit the freedom of travel under these circumstances, and there's no obvious reason why Tibet should be an exception.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The obvious reason is, Tibet is not a country on earth. It's currently a part of PRC according to the facts you just said you had "recognized". --Callofktulu 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, what I just said is that a bunch of politicians have said that Tibet is part of China. That doesn't make it true. It seems to me that you are confusing two different things here. On the one hand, it's true that the Chinese government is in control of Tibet. This is a statement of what is, and anything that follows from it is a matter of who can do what. As for the question of whether Han people can move to Tibet, the answer is that they can move to Tibet if the PRC government says they can, and they cannot move there if the government says they can't. Period. That's because the government controls the country. On the other hand, if you want to talk about somebody's rights, then you are now talking about the way things should be. And, when you come down to it, Tibet should be controlled by Tibetans, which, in the opinion of almost everyone in the world, means that they should be able to control who comes into their own country and who doesn't.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether Han migration to Tibet is 'right' or not is entirely subjective. If I was raised in the PRC and have been taught my whole life that Tibet is part of the motherland, and now I am told I can't live there because my government succumbed to international pressure forbidding Hans from moving there, I would feel pretty pissed.--Lssah 88 22:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, since the Chinese government controls and exerts sovereignty over Tibet (or more accurately "Xizang"), Tibet is a part of China. I think what Nat Krause should have questioned instead is whether Tibet should have been a part of China (possibly in legal terms), which is of course open to debate. Heilme 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether the Chinese occupation of Tibet is 'illegal' or not is subjective, just as much as whether or not Japanese occupation of China would have benifited China, China is over populated, China might be in a better state if the Japanese slaughtered more Chinese. The fact of the matter is that the Tibetan plateau is a region occupied by a people with a unique and independant identity that would be susceptible to damage due to mass migration by Han Chinese and industrialisation. The issue of freedom of movement is an 'issue' in China, it does not exist!:::

The fact of the matter is that PRC exerts control over Tibet, and a PRC citizen by right have the right to live in Tibet. What you are arguing is based on a Tibetan standpoint, which to a mainland Chinese, is xenophobic and racist. And please sign your post...--Lssah 88 17:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

"Xenophobic and racist" is a good description for mainstream Han culture, as well as PRC practice, if not on-paper policy. And you, you're just weird.Skookum1 17:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Care to tell me some of the Han's "xenophobic and racist" behaviors?--Lssah 88 18:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOLOLOLOLOLOL. ROTFL. The Han are known throughout Asia as one of the most racist of all peoples of that continent, perhaps exceeded only by the Koreans and Japanese (who at least have better manners and avoid showing their racism overtly). They're also known in this Han-inundated city for being very hostile to mixing with non-Chinese, and make a point of building a separate society even when "immigrating" to another country they have no intention of assimilating in; rather making it more Chinese in character. This is very much the case with the occupation of Tibet, which is a case in point of Han racism; and Han attitudes towards criticism of their imperialism and colonialism in Tibet are a case in point of the xenophobia. What a crock of denial YOU are. Please look up "disingenuous" in a good English dictionary, and pause to reflect on your pretense that the opinions you espouse are NOT xenophobic and racist. They are, you are, and Han China IS. I'll be laughing at you all day; I wish I could laugh in your face.Skookum1 18:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice people who hangs out with those Tibetans-in-exile on an unhealthy regular basis develops a passion for hating anything Chinese, you are certainly one of them. Using your reasoning, one could argue Tibetans are racist because they consistently refuse to be assimilated with the Hans, even after the fact their Dalai Lama acknowledged Tibet is an inseparable part of the Chinese motherland. It is undeniable that the tone of the arguments they (and you) make against Han immigration strikes a remarkable resemblance to the same ones a white supremacist would make against non-white legal immigration into their country. Your assertion that the PRC regime is racist because they are pouring in huge amounts of resources in modernizing Tibet and improving Tibetan standards of living is ridiculous. Lssah 88 18:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

---

The key is, Dalai and his followers are only a small group of people, who are not living in Tibet, could barely speak in the Tibetan language, and know little about what's going on in today's Tibet. They don't know what people living there are currently thinking. They don't care about their opportunities of development and prosperity. They just want to resume their past previlege and noble status in Tibet (as serf masters), and they have been detached from Tibet for years. So I don't understand why Western people think of their unrepresentative, bias, and sometimes absurd views (e.g. the view regarding Western development policy and the railway) as important ones?

Most of the pro-Tibet opinions in the article are from "Tibetans in-exile", I very much doubt the opinions of Tibetans currently living in Tibet are adequately represented in this article, specifically the younger generation that were born and raised in the post-Mao era. I suspect their views on Chinese rule would differ from those who experienced the worst of it during the earlier phases. Maybe there should be a another POV section dedicated to their views? BTW, the above statement is written by someone with an emotional outburst and neglected to sign his post, it was NOT written by me!--Lssah 88 22:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Dalai Lama and his followers are a smaller group of people than Tibetans in China, but that doesn't mean anything about any assertions or claims they may make, which have to be judged on their truthfulness and accuracy and not how many followers they have in comparison to other groups. Also the contention that they can "barely speak in the Tibetan language" is incorrect. The Dalai Lama speaks fluent Tibetan as do most of the exile CTA (Central Tibet Administration) officials. As to whether they know what is happening in Tibet istelf, they have tried to organize fact finding missions a few times, but it seems these were rebuffed by the PRC. Perhaps it would be best if third parties could be allowed to find out what is really going on. --Aishwarya888 20:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question, if Dalai Lama's "fact finding missions" never landed in Tibet for whatever reasons, how can he and his followers stated any "truth" regarding contemporary Tibet? Where do their "truthfullness and accuracy" come from? BBC? VOA? LOL... --Callofktulu 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know, Mr. Ktulu. Perhaps from the thousands of refugees who have fled. Perhaps someone bribed some Chinese military to smuggle media in and out. Perhaps certain journalists whether Chinese or not, have uncovered things. Who knows, right? There does seem to be an amazing proponderence of evidence in support of at least many of the CTA and Tibetan exiles' claims. I also know that EU officials visited Tibet a while ago and were not happy with what they saw. I have looked at some of what the PRC has put out about "progress" in Tibet and all I can say is that no where on earth has such paradisical "progress" ever been achieved...so that PRC info is suspect, to say the least. --Aishwarya888 20:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to have a section describing the views of Tibetan people in Tibet. However, as I assume you're aware, Tibet is a police state, and, therefore, its people cannot freely express their views under penalty of being tortured in prison. How do you propose to write such a section, then?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that possible -- Not because Tibet is a "police" state, but due to the weird logic here in Westerner's mind that would pre-assume anything positive to be PRC propaganda. Your bias created this paradox: only people jailed by PRC (therefore cannot write here) can tell truth. Personally, I do NOT think myself has the authority to tell what the current Tibeten people REALLY think, but I can add some of my personal observations. According to my experience, neigther those pro-PRC nor pro-Dalai claims are true. People living in Tibet generally don't have much love in CCP, but don't have much hate in them, either. As to Dalai, they think he is still the highest religious leader (you will NOT get jailed if you expressed so), but not many of them want him back as the political leader (yes, this one will put you in jail), because there is just no reason for them to do so. Remember most Tibetans are former serfs or descendents of serfs while Dalai and his followers were serf masters, and it is TRUE that when CCP launched massive land reform in late 50s, many Tibetan serfs supported them. That's why Dalai lost the battle so quickly. So if you have time the best way is to go there and see it yourself. The other thing I heard when I was there, was that during some time in late 70s or 80s there were several rebells in Tibet. Maybe someone can add something about it? --Callofktulu 03:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I very much agree with you though I myself am not a Tibetan. The revolt of Tibetan serfs are one reason why the Dalai Lama lost quickly to the Chinese armies. And in the 70s or 80s, there are armed conflicts involving Tibetan separatists (I am not too clear on the detail) and they attack a Chinese military base there. But since then, the Dalai Lama has encouraged peaceful movement (which won him the 1989 Nobel Prize), and there hasn't been much conflict since. Heilme 23:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Immigration to Tibet is not about ethnic Chinese "seeking opportunities." I used to teach at a college in China. I know how the system works. The government sends recruiters to the campuses they tell the students that it's their patriotic duty to work in Tibet and they'll get priority when they apply for housing in major city later. I don't know if what the recruiters say is really true, but the students seem to believe them. Every ethnic Chinese ultimately wants to live in a major city and considers living in Tibet a sacrifice. I asked if the students if they wanted to learn about Buddhism and they seemed to be a bit surprised to learn that Tibetans are Buddhists.

So is there really a massive wave of Han migration to Tibet or not? You seem to be implying that those workers travel reluctantly to Tibet for a temp job so they can find better housing in a major city in China Proper later, and NOT settling down in Tibet right after. I would hardly call Lhasa a major city.--Lssah 88 02:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese do not have the right where they like in their own country. There is a housing registration (houkou) system. (The police followed me home once, so even I had register.) If you look at Chinese personal ads, women write things like, "I want to meet a man who has houkou for such and such a section of Beijing."

There is indeed a regulation over inter-provincial migration (such as rural workers moving into cities). This is because urban people usually get privilege such as health/education from the city-governments and these city officials don't want to pay extra money for rural immigrants. As a result, it's very hard for rural immigrants to get resident status in the city. But as of last year, the Chinese government has abolished such restriction in many big eastern cities so rural immigrants can enjoy benefit given by the city governments too (not yet Shanghai I think). All in all, I think your statement is misleading. Chinese do have the right to live wherever they please within China. But not necessarily able to easily change their resident status (such as changing from a Anhui resident status into a Shanghai resident status). Heilme 23:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There was no agitation about the condition of the serfs prior to 1951 and no reason to think they welcomed the Chinese Communists. This issue is something the communists created after the fact.

This is just naive. The success of any governance has its deep social roots and reasons. "There was no agitation about the condition of the serfs prior" is also untrue. CCP might be evils, but they were not idiots. They were very smart in mobolizing people and getting support from the mass. There's no reason denying it.

The reason to deny it is because it's not true. There no Tibetan communist movement before Chinese troops. In the 1950s, the entire politburo of the Communist Party in Tibet was ethnic Chinese. The party took away the peasants' property, herded them into communes, made them slaves, and create a famine (which Tibet never had when it was independent). Even the Panchen Lama, the CCP favorite Tibetan, denounced the policies. The revolt in 1959 had support from all segments of Tibetan society.Kauffner 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

On the issue of why Tibet fell so easily to the communists: The monastaries wanted Tibet to be a nation dedicated exclusively to religion. To them, the army represented secular and British influence. It was therefore starved for funds.

As far as what Tibetans really think, there's a simple way to find out. Have a multi-party election.Kauffner 11:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

UN and US recognized China sovereignty over Tibet NOT because China currently exerts controls there. As early as in 1942 (7 years before PRC was established), State Department already told KMT administration in wartime capital Chongqing that US never raised any question on Chinese sovereignty claim over Tibet.166.122.98.179 02:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian

To Free Tibet Supporters from a Chinese:

China is multi-ethnic and multi-cultural. We have tens of different languages, many places issued their own currency, had their own government from time to time. There are Tibetan communities in Han majority provinces outside of Tibet. Should these people be forcibly seperated from Han Chinese and evicted to Tibet in your opinon? I am a Mongolian-Han mix, do you have a place for me in your definition of China? The Han ethnic group is itself a hybrid of several different groups. Tibet is a frontier region and historically China had not forced assimilation on this region while other countries ethnically cleaned their own frontiers. So now we have an awkward transition period where China's critics can wag their fingers while sitting comfortably in their ethnically cleansed countries. I don't like how the CCP treats Chinese people everywhere, not just in Tibet. Policy mistakes in the last several decades effected all of China. I certainly sympathize with Tibetans because from their POV those polices came from an outside culture, and to a large degree the Chinese government is responsible for it's own bad press. The time for repressing Tibtan culture however is in the past. Today's China is building monastaries and temples there. We can only hope time can heal the damage. People do get arrested still, but not for being Buddhists, rather for taking part in sedition and insurrections. The vast majority of Tibetans live in peace and are free to practice their culture. There are limitations in the way the religious centers are ran because there is a security dimension to religion there. How do one justify calling for non-interferance in the monastaries when these institutions call for violent insurrections? The same is true in many countries where Islamic preachers are abusing their positions to incite terrorism. Remarkably, in Tibetan communities in Sichuan or Qinhai provinces there is no problem displaying portraits of the Dali Lama - because the security concern does not exist. The forbidding of his portrait in Tibet does not come from an anti-Tibetan policy. It is however nonsense to believe Han Chinese have done nothing but damage Tibet. Tibetan living standard have been dramatically improved in every measureable way. You may believe their culture was intruded upon, but there is no escape from modernity. Do you really think Tibetans want someone to take away their televisions, movie theaters, schools and hospitals? Today Lhasa is a developed city with highrise buildings, Mercedes on the paved roads, Tibetans in shopping malls buying gold watches. The main complaint from Tibetans is that Chinese have an unfair competitive advantage in the new economy, not that this economy shouldn't exist. This view of Tibet "The Snow Leopard" is a very one-sided view of a developing region of China, treating it with biased romanticism and mysticism. CCPs poor treatment of its citizens is improving but has a long long way to go. I think the overall trend is good and people should work toward the overall good. Hopefully China will eventually democratize and liberalize as everyone in China wants. The present Chinese government is doing the best it could to heal past wounds in Tibet. Unfortunantly the seperatist movement supported by Tibetan exiles and China critics is not helping the matter. For example China is promoting autonomy for Tibet, but autonomy cannot become cultural segregation which would only produce more problems later. If we are all to live in harmony, then we all have to live and let live, at the same time allow assimilation to take course. China needs to help Tibetans get better education and job opportunities, and Tibetan nationalists need to accept infrastructure investment like the new railroad as opportunities for a better life. This is already happening, whether we have the Dali Lama's cooperation or not. Thanks for listening.--Comrade Conrad 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda

This is one of the most shocking articles I have read on Wikipedia and it goes to show how far American based websites will go to please the Chinese government.

There has been a near destruction of a people with an entirely separate and identifiable cultural history and identity under the actions of the People's Republic of China. Lhasa has had its cultural and ethnic soul ripped out, the people live in terror of being accused of pro-Independence political views.

The mass murder of monks and nuns alone demonstrates Chinese attitude to freedom of expression. Children were forced to shoot their own parents. Nuns and monks were forced to have sexual intercourse in the streets before being crucified and/or buried alive. Modest estimates alone put the total number of civilians murdered at 300,000

This entire article is a sham and the perpetrators know it. The abuses against the Tibetans were laid open very clearly by secret footage smuggled out of Tibet by the BBC and several other European television networks.

More fool you lot for putting up with this shambolic whitewashing.--Iamlondon 01:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"This entire article is a sham and the perpetrators know it" is a personal attack on the editors of this article. Either prove your accusations, or apologise, or else I will remove these comments from the talk page.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 01:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, it was a direct attack on certain contributors. Secondly, with all due respect, the inclusion of PRC quotations and statistical estimates regarding the genocide which took place in Tibet from 1959 onward is, frankly, ridiculous. If you feel the need to remove my objection then I question the efficacy of any 'editing'. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M92HetGpkUM&search=tibet - Perhaps you would like to watch this video.--Iamlondon 01:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize this article into a Free Tibet site, it needs to be as balanced and neutral as possible. Also, showing that video from an obvious source is bad taste when one can easily find pictures of lamas talking on cellphones from Chinese sources trying to purport the economic prosperity they are bringing to Tibet. Also, you still haven't provided sources to your claims of: "The mass murder of monks and nuns alone demonstrates Chinese attitude to freedom of expression. Children were forced to shoot their own parents. Nuns and monks were forced to have sexual intercourse in the streets before being crucified and/or buried alive. Modest estimates alone put the total number of civilians murdered at 300,000" Please bear in mind that any citations you provide to these accusations must be independently verfied by neutral sources.--Lssah 88 15:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see such claims' sources. Or cite them somewhere if you please. While I may personally think that some horrific things have happened in Tibet, I also realize that if anyone makes specific assertions, as opposed to generalized opinions, it would be nice if you can provide sources as I am certain some of us wish to check them on our own and draw our own conclusions. This is the only way what is the truth can be discovered in this medium. Likewise, since the exile CTA's info needs to be verifiable and supported by facts, I wish to see more sources or citations about improvements or benefits to Tibet that don't just rely on what the PRC gov't has to say, as all of us human beings know that gov'ts have their own interests at heart when they present info. That info must still be verifiable and supported by facts. --Aishwarya888 20:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is information from the PRC govt or the CTA in exile, information has to be verifiable and backed up by sources where necessary. Iamlondon and others like him/her do not appreciate their own biases. --Sumple (Talk) 00:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Iamlondon, I watched the movie you linked to, and, overall, I thought it was quite good, and not terribly propagandistic. I would recommend it to anyone who understands English. Anyway, I'd like to know what specific changes you want to make it the article, so we can discuss them. Or, just go ahead and make changes as you see fit, and other users will change them back if they disagree, at which point we can discuss if necessary. Of course, anything you add should be verified from neutral sources, unless it is added in the context of describing someone's opinion.

I'm a bit confused by your statement, "the inclusion of PRC quotations and statistical estimates regarding the genocide which took place in Tibet from 1959 onward is, frankly, ridiculous". Even the documentary you linked to includes some statements from Chinese officials. The people in the PRC are humans just like you and me and they deserve to have their statements considered.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. My first point is to say that I am not a vandaliser, so no fear there - were I such I wouldn't be having this discussion. Neither am I a 'Free Tibet Nut'. I'm actually nothing more important than a Roman Catholic passionate about the fate of forgotten peoples. Quoting the PRC on statistics referring to Tibet is dangerous because it plays into the hands of a nation with one of the most horrendous human rights records in the current age. There is some shameful financial B___ Kissing going on between several western nations and a nation which has utterly rejected the principles of freedom that the west itself holds dear...or claims to. I find it remarkable that in the face of unlimited eyewitness testimony, secret footage and countless news programmes concerning Tibet that anyone would question that the state of affairs in Tibet is anything other than deplorable. In Lhasa alone (a city whose beauty has been eradicated by the destruction of ancient structures of world heritage status) Tibetans face terribly high unemployment and poverty rates because they will not conform with their Chinese neighbours. Recent propaganda concerning further transport route incursion into Tibet revolves around the notion of a backward little corner of 'Greater China' in need of fatherly development from Peking. This article achieves the job set out by the Chinese Government - to convince outsiders that although there has been trouble in Tibet things are actually not so bad. One might tell that to the several thousand Tibetans who have endured prison in Chinese gaols for no greater crime than asking for their political freedoms as Tibetans - a sovereign nation with a history of foreign diplomatic relations, its own armed forces, its own language, currency, racial identity and literary/artistic traditions utterly separate from the Chinese. Information should not have a political father, I quite agree - which is why this article is pretty redundant - it presents an image of Tibet far different from the current and past history of Chinese involvement in that country, an image that says, "Yes, things aren't great...they're 'so so'" when in fact things are atrociously bad for Tibetans and wonderfully promising for dollar-driven Chinese immigrants. 'Balance' in this article has resulted in 'Bias' by default. And I am terribly saddened that so many will read this article and come away relatively unconcerned for a people who continue to flee their homeland by the thousands each and every year. Reducing the truth of conditions in Tibet to a series of external links just isn't good editing at all.--Iamlondon 20:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Man, your argument only leads to one reasonable conclusion: "Free China". Why Tibet is so special here? Dollar-driven Chinese immigrants? Is it your habit to use racist words? Most people in this world are dollor-driven. Americans, Britishers, you name it. Money talks! I really doubt your capability of making neutral judgement. --Klim2000 23:50, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

So now "Chinese" is a racist word? Alongside Oriental and other words trashed by the Chinese obsession for finding insult in the most innocuous of words in languages you barely understand the history of; while no doubt happily using gweilo every time you open your mouth. Chinese is not a racist word, nor is pointing out that the Chinese are as capable of greed and imperial vanity as any other branch of humanity. Sure, it's all about the benjamins, or in your case the renminbi. Admit it - it's to make China richer, more powerful, and less self-insecure that you need to continue the subjugation and colonization of Tibet? Because it's all about the dough, as you just said yourself. Chinese greed is the same as American greed or Russian greed or British greed or the kind of greed that fuels Al-Qaeda (which is a greed for paradise, at any cost). Look up Seven Deadly Sins and I suggest you might want to read some of the Dalai Lama's teachings; but you don't admit he exists as anything but an enemy of your state, so why bother, huh? I hope you'll happily move to Lhasa and help out with the eradication of Tibetan culture so that the Han can be a happier imperial culture just like the envied Americans and British. Because one of your other seven deadly sins, in everything you've posted, is Envy.Skookum1 00:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama recognizes Tibet to be an inseparable part of the People's Republic of China, the only thing he is pushing for is greater autonomy for the Tibetan people, but I think he will eventually have to drop that stance as well since it makes no sense to push for autonomy for your people while at the same time recgonizing your people are subjects to another government. And you are right, Tibet is rich in natural resources that greatly helps fuel a rapidly developing Chinese economy. Only a fool would throw that away. Do you expect the CCP to be fools? And if in fact the Chinese are out to eradicate Tibetan culture, why are they rebuilding the monasteries and allowing Tibetan monks to continue their religious practices there (as long as they keep it apolitical)? Why are their street signs still written in Tibetan? Why is Tibetan still taught in schools? Why are Tibetans exempt from the One-Child policy? The list goes on and on. I thought the CCP was already generous enough not to herd them into reserves, but provide them the opportunity to compete in equal terms with Han Chinese by raising their standards of living, improving education/healthcare, etc... The problem with you is that you can't seem to see anything logical from the Chinese side and your only purpose here is to bash China.--Lssah 88 19:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

With all due respect (none), Lssah 88, the Dalai Lama would quite obviously prefer the Chinese get the hell out of his country, stop murdering his people and cease strangling the Tibetan people. "Only a fool" would claim that China was a paternalistic benefactor that Tibet should be grateful to have around. My purpose is to bash China? Why would I want to bash the one country on the planet with the single worst Human Rights record? Why would I want to bash a government which has brutalised its own people since Mao's murderous rise to power, killing millions and millions of Chinese? Why would I want to brutalise a regime as corrupt and soulless as the communist regime of the PRC? Your claims are all nonsense - Tibetan is taught in the schools? WRONG! Why are Tibetans exempt from the One-Child policy? Because it allows the Han Chinese to go to Tibet and breed the Tibetans out....you're a blatant propagandist, most likely Chinese descent and clearly not interested in the fate of people struggling to live in their own homeland. Why is the PCC rebuilding monasteries? It ain't - it's building little controlled cells of religion which it then surrounds with armed police and informers to control movement. "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel", my friend. There is no defence for what the PRC Government has done in Tibet over the past 40+ years. It is a shameful disgrace against the UN, and thankfully the world now knows all about what has happened.--Iamlondon 02:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You are just one of Dalai's bum boys wanting to revert Tibet back to the serf system (aka SLAVERY). You ignore the fact that the standards of living for the average Tibetan has increased 10 folds since Chinese rule. You ignore the fact that Tibetans are enjoying the prosperity the Chinese brought to them. Your only purpose here is to bash the PRC which you know NOTHING about, typical attitude from a Free Tibet NUTCASE. Whine all you want, but the 1.3 billion Chinese in the world ain't letting you separate Tibet from China. Even Dalai knows it and wants a settlement mutually beneficial to Hans and Tibetans. Maybe it's time you dropped your racist anti-Chinese attitude and be more like him...--Lssah 88 20:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You habitually misundertood something again. I meant "Dollar-driven Chinese immigrants", not just "Chinese". I find there is no further point to argue with you based on your words here. Bye and have a good day. --Klim2000 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Envy? Now comes personal attack from your nobel, highly educated, better beings. Let's play it. The life of Dalai Lama is totally a joke. He is just a puppet manipulated by several powers. Look at the ridiculous nobel peace prize awarded to him, which was another BIG joke too. The only sin I know is that: it is shameless to accept such a glorious prize if I were him. It is also simply stupid to follow any things from his mouth. Even Dala lam admits Tibet is part of China. Are you following him? my friend. --Klim2000 00:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

One more thing. You underestimated the wisdom of Chinese. We never think Dalai Lama is an enemy of our state. How could he be? Our real enemies are those behind the scene. It is them who trained the military of Tibetan, provoked riots in Lhasa, and also issue nobel peace prize to the spiritual puppet at the same time. --Klim2000 01:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I really feel obligated to anti-brainwash somebody like you: Please read the following fact instead of so-called seven sins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzin_Gyatso%2C_14th_Dalai_Lama#Criticism

In October 1998, The Dalai Lama's administration acknowledged that it received $1.7 million a year in the 1960's from the US government through the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)[24], and also trained a resistance movement in Colorado (USA). [25] When asked by CIA officer John Kenneth Knaus in 1995 whether the organization did a good or bad thing in providing its support, the Dalai Lama replied that though it helped the morale of those resisting the Chinese, "thousands of lives were lost in the resistance" and further, that "the U.S. Government had involved itself in his country's affairs not to help Tibet but only as a Cold War tactic to challenge the Chinese."[26]

Well, guess what? During the Sino-Japanese War, China also received support from the U.S. And this support was given not to help China, but only as a tactic to challenge the Japanese. Oh no! Does this mean that China's independence is just a scheme by imperialistic America?—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 06:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

His point of bringing that up is to show the hypocritical nature of the Dalai Lama, a Nobel Prize winner who claims he and his followers are carrying out a non-violent struggle for a Free Tibet. Well guess what? He has also been on the CIA's payroll!--Lssah 88 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot how Dalai Lama uses this payroll from CIA. Do you really think those money are for personal entertainment? Or were these money for the good cause of the people? I dunno the truth to these but I do believe he funds the money to the public, however if you can find a article about how Dalai Lama uses the payroll from CIA for his own personal entertainment, then I'd be happy to see Dalai Lama as merely a con-artist in desguise, otherwise the chances of his payroll going to a good cause is highly. And I don't see him with any guns or tank or bombs. Do you? Monkey Brain 03:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever said the money was for his personal entertainment, "Monkey Brain"? The money was used to support armed resistance against Chinese rule which cost "thousands of lives", AND it goes contrary to the Dalai's consistent claims his struggle was 'non-violent'.--Lssah 88 15:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I hadn't known/read of that(lol), I changed my mind on Dalai Lama. (But don't hate/dislike him.) Monkey Brain_(talk) 14:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Chinese government's attrocities to its own people are well know. One can imagine, what Tibetian must have suffered. Before pointing at the morality of Dalai Lama, chinese should introspect what morality standard they have. Communist party has brainwashed all chinese people. They even don't have capability of judging what is right and what is wrong by themselves. They need communist party to tell what. Chinese govt cry foul of Japanese crimes all the times, but uses the similar tactice to Tibetian. I am not a Tibetian. I am just one of those people, who think Tibet should be freed from Chinese attrocities. Let them decide what development they want. Let them decide what is good for them.

With regards to the Wylie system and transliteration of Tibetan names into English:

Many scholars using Wylie solve the problem of which letter to capitalize by not capitalizing any letter. This appears to be a fruitful choice since Tibetan writing has no such capitalization. I recommend this approach be used. Capitalize the letter when using a more phonetic transliteration but leave the Wylie version uncapitalized.

For example... Shigatse "gzhis-ka-rtse". This looks a lot better and is more accurate then using "Gzhis-ka-rtse." (Of course, if you can get written-Tibetan versions, so much the better.)

I should also mention that some translators who do capitalize letters have modified Wylie a bit and capitalize the first letter that is actually pronounced. Thus, our example above would be... "gZhis-ka-rtse." I can see why some people would use this style as a word like Gelug looks better as "dGe-lugs" than "Dge-lugs." (Similarly for Lama as "bLa-ma" as opposed to "Bla-ma.") It is just a pedantic choice though as I have said Tibetan writing has nothing comparable to capitalization. I do note that the this style is followed in the Geography section of the Tibet Article. (A-mdo, Khams, dBus-gTsang, and mNga-ris are used.) This style is not used in the Cities section. So whatever choice of Wylie style is made, it would be nice to see it consistently used throughout the article.

The Wylie system is only used to adhere to accuracy and so that researchers can accurately reference any cited Tibetan texts. Owing to the complexity of Tibetan writing, mere phonetic transliterations would lead to confusion for researchers since spoken and written Tibetan vary widely, as anyone familiar with Tibetan can testify. Thus if you are reading a work in English on some Tibetan Buddhist text and wish to look up the original, you would rather have the Wylie spelling so you can reference the Tibetan work more easily then trying to search out all the possible Tibetan orthographic spellings that would give rise to a phonetic spelling.

I hope this has been helpful. I could go into more detail as to why Wylie is necessary both for researchers and for Western students of Tibetan Buddhism - all of the issues related to actual Tibetan pronunciation as opposed to the way Tibetan is written - but this would entail an article in and of itself. And as I am only a casual reader whose knowledge of written Tibetan is second hand, I leave that for more qualified people.

--Aishwarya888 20:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Aishwarya, thanks for your input on this. I agree that we need to have Wylie spelling (either that, or Tibetan characters, or both) available for names. However, I think if there is separate article for the subject, then we don't have to give the Wylie spelling here (that's the way we generally do it for Chinese words).

Unfortunately, I don't quite agree with you about capitalisation, although this is essentially an issue of style, so it's hard to argue over. I prefer to capitalise all Romanised words as they would be in English. I figure, English has fairly simple capitalisation rules, so we might as well apply them across the board. I've been doing a bit of Wylie input here and there lately, so Wikipedia is gradually tending more to this style: Bstan-'dzin Rgya-mtsho (whereas some writers would make it bsTan-'dzin rGya-mTsho bstan-'dzin rgya-mtsho, or bstan 'dzin rgya mtsho). This is the style that was apparently recommended by Wylie in his original paper laying out his system, and it was also recommended to me by Wikipedia's Nathan hill, who knows more about this stuff than I do.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 04:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. As long as it is consistent any system is fine. --Aishwarya888 20:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnicity and Statistical Variance (Han, Tibetan, and Other?)

With regard to official PRC statistics on population and population groups in historical Tibetan areas, I want to ask for some clarity, if possible, on the "Other" category. This is important as some of the ethnic minorities categorized by the PRC as "Other" in terms of the "Major Ethnic Groups In Greater Tibet by Region, 2000 Census" chart on the Tibet Article, may be considered by Tibetans as Tibetan groups.

There is some variance that may appear as groups like Sherpas, Monpas, Jongpos, Lhopas and others which are culturally and historically Tibetan groups are not to my knowledge recognized as such by the PRC. With regard to Sherpas themselves, I am aware that they reside more in central Tibetan areas and also in Nepal (where they are considered a distinct ethnic group of Tibetan ancestry). I am unaware of any of the other groups, but some exiled Tibetans have made some reference to these groups in the past.

I wonder if anyone has any more info on these groups particularly as they relate to this issue and the Tibet Article, as well as the various views by the PRC, the Tibetan Gov't in exile, and any opinions by any people from any of these ethnic groups themselves as to their status and categorization. Summaries of this info could be included in the Demographics section of the article so that readers could gain a more accurate or balanced idea of cultural and historical Tibet. More detailed presentations of this info could better help any specific Wikipedia articles on the groups themselves.

It's just a idea and a question.

Thank you for any help you can provide me with on this. --Aishwarya888 20:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Project China

I do not think that this article should be part of wiki project china (ie not be related ro china relanted articles, but rather tibet related ones) It is a very politically contencious issue; Tibet, its occupation is illegal under international law and China has committed human rights abuses in Tibet. Who agrees with me?--Segafreak2 11:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fine where it belongs. Tibet's status is as much of a concern to the CCP as it is to Tibetan separatists.--Lssah 88 22:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

A majority of the territory of what is known as "historical Tibet" is now part of China. So the current setting is okay. "Legal" or "illegal", international viewpoint is not always neutral. Heilme 22:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Historical Tibet and historical China overlap. For long periods both governments performed some governmental functions in the same territory with respect to the Tibetan and Chinese populations. Fred Bauder 17:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the China project template should stay, but, in order to assuge any hard feelings, I have moved the Central Asia project template so that it appears first.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. Where is the proof of "Tibet, its occupation is illegal under international law"? I just saw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibet#Third-Party_views

"...even today international legal experts sympathetic to the Dalai Lama's cause find it difficult to argue that Tibet ever technically established its independence of the Chinese Empire, imperial, or republican" [20] --Klim2000 02:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

No great power ever recognized the independence of Tibet. Fred Bauder 03:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not about the independence of Tibet! It's "China-related". That doesn't have to mean that whatever gets tagged belongs to China. Who's going to deny that Tibet is "China-related"? --Sumple (Talk) 04:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Will Tibet ever be indefinitely free?

It just occurred to me that the Republic of China also claims Tibet to be a part of China. So say history is reversed and the communists fled to Taiwan with the ROC remaining in control of the mainland. Chiang Kai-Shek would still have gone after Tibet and forcibly re-integrate it with China. So it seems like no matter what happens, and regardless of what the ruling government, Tibet will always be a part of China at various points in her history. It might become temporarily detached from China when she succumbs to internal turmoil and division (god forbid it ever happens again), but it will always be re-integrated back with China by a strong unifier, ala Mao Zedong/Qin Shi-huang type. The region is too strategically important for any sane Chinese leader to ignore.--Lssah 88 03:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You, sir/madam, are out of your mind.--Iamlondon 02:50, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally somebody understood it! Yes, so it is almost equally insane to argue with average Chinese that Tibet should be freed. I am a proud Chinese. Freeing Tibet sounds like cutting Chinese legs to me. I am ready to fight again any attempt of freeing Tibet! Really! --Klim2000 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If Chinese freedom means someone else's slavery, what worth is that freedom? Zilch. Perhaps you should try getting your legs amputated and compare the sensation when Tibet acquires its freedom.Skookum1 00:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

How do you know there IS a slavery. For god sake, please give concrete evidences when talking about things. --Klim2000 01:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well Poland used to be part of Germany, and part of Russia. That's no reason why it should be so now.Skookum1 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Tibet had never been free even during its autonomy period under Qing Dynasty or quasi-independent during ROC. Second, under the current format of the exile government in Dharamsala, the 4 Buddhist sects can choose their own candidates into the Kashag w/o popular votes. Such system is neither liberal nor secular but resembles a theocracy like that of Iran. In terms of freedom, Tibet region will become a democracy after China does so. I don't see why the residents in Tibet cannot choose their own governor and elect their legislators to the Senate in Beijing by that time. Of course, the governor and senators may not necessarily be a native Tibetan. Do you see Hawaii ever elect a Native Hawaiian as governor?166.122.98.179 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian

It is possbile

Whoever wants to separate Tibet has to demolish China first. That is simply the fact. And mostly, only the (potential) enemies of China want to do so and therefore they constantly make propaganda to advocate "free Tibet" compaign, which is "weakening China" essentially. For general western public, think twice before response such advocates with any personal energy. Like think twice when somebody claimed there was weapons of massive destruction in Iraq. --Klim2000 23:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to see a video clip of what the Chinese did in Tibet? I can post here, for everyone to see, footage of what they have done to the Tibetans. A clip that contains images of headless bodies, raped children, monks with no ears, nuns who've had their breasts cut off, an abbot who had an electric cattle prod shoved in his mouth to electrocute him (thereby setting fire to his mouth and leaving blood pouring out of his head until he was dead). So I ask you, would you like me to post that link here for everyone to see? Have you got the guts to see it? What about a charming little clip of the aftermath of the Tiananmen Square Massacre? How about some charming photos of what the Chinese Communist lunacy did during the 'Cultural Revolution'? The PRC is led by a pariah government whose leaders are attacked by protests wherever they go in the Free World. It is to the West's eternal shame that we humour this murderous regime for no other reason than money. The truest victims are the Chinese people themselves, in a land where there is no freedom of speech, no democracy and no real judicial process of law. Get a grip - if you're a Chinese patriot then start speaking up for your people and not the government that kills them and keeps them oppressed.--Iamlondon 02:58, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Post it right here and I would like to see it. I do not believe what you said about China because I grew up in there, and I left China only 5 years ago. I don't know much about Tibet, so please, show me what you have and I will decide myself. 69.166.226.1 05:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds more like a threat towards world war than anything else, Klim2000. Do you have any idea how politically immature you sound? Sure, George Bush is a bozo. So is the current Chinese regime. And so are you, for thinking that the subjugation of another people is a valid condition of your own nation's imperial stature. If so, then your empire is as corrupt and venal as all others in human history - and it, too, shall fall. Only time outlasts human vanity. Even Chinese vanities. Your national ego means nothing if it is built on the backs and souls of your state's victims, be it Tibetans or the hapless, if deluded, members of Falun Dafa.Skookum1 00:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

He does have a point. It is impossible for Tibet to achieve independence unless the PRC is destabilized, and if that happens, the world has something else to worry about than just Tibet. At least the PRC are not herding the Tibetans into reserves, something which the US had already done with their natives.--Lssah 88 17:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I might be politically immature. But you might be immature in terms of common sense. Please honestly answer me: Have you ever been to Tibet? Have you ever talked to the average Tibetans? How do you know there is a subjugation of another people? --Klim2000 01:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Disingenuousness is a trait of PRC propagandists. "Who, us?" Look, I HAVE talked to average Tibetans-in-exile, and it's well-known that anyone in the PRC who speaks publicly, or to foreigners, concerning the repressive nature of the Communist Party and its rule over Tibet as well as China proper and Eastern Turkestan/Xinjiang is going to get in a lot of trouble, and perhaps tortured, executed and their organs placed on the open market. You're obviously a shill for Chinese imperialism, and there's no point in asking if you have no shame, because you don't.Skookum1 17:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Amen! And the disgrace is that the 'Editors' haven't the guts to lay the fact of propaganda in this article out in the open. The PRC Regime is extremely active on the internet in spreading its lies and deceit. Fake websites, fake Tibetan Leaders (paid), fake 'News Services'. Thanks for standing up and being counted.--Iamlondon 03:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

No doubt your views are biased since your only source of information about Tibet are from "Tibetans-in-exile". At the very least, if you feel that strongly about the issue, you should travel to Tibet and learn about the truth THERE.--Lssah 88 18:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been to Tibet - people are, as in the rest of Chinese controlled territory, terrified of being caught by the secret police speaking about anything the government frowns upon. I saw a man get dragged off the street by the army simply for speaking to a journalist. Ask Amnesty International what they think of the PRC Regime. --Iamlondon 21:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose Amnesty International was also around to document how Tibetan serfs were brutally treated by their slave masters prior to Chinese rule, hmmm? Required Reading --Lssah 88 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

You are naturally patriotic about the country in which you grew up in, and were born. But the people in Tibet have the right to self determination and autonomy, they have the right to stand up for what they believe, under international law, under various resolutions that the UN has passed on decolonisation and no state can deny this to them. It's easy to turn a blind eye to attrocities like the ones committed in Tibet if you are a Chinese citizen, or ethnically Han Chinese. But these things do happen. I am British, and find it hard to believe that we put Boers in concentration camps during the Boer War, were anti-semetic during the thirties when men like Mowsley and the BUF were spreading their filth. I was also dismayed when Hong Kong was handed over to China, I thought that Britain was still a major player in the world, and handing over its historical enormous empire to China. But it happened. And we have to live with the past and present. If I was in Tibet now, I would not be allowed to discuss this on the internet. I would not be allowed to speak out against the state, who are occupiers in their minds. But maybe not in the eyes of Hu Jintao's teritorial and sickening regeime.

What do you mean by "handing over its historical enormous empire to China"? Do they also teach you about the Opium Wars in British schools? Guess not...--Lssah 88 20:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Look here; Tibetans are even prevented from demonstrating at a football match; in Switzerland! (Yes, this is SWITZERLAND, the most neutral country on earth) http://www.games-of-beijing.org/content/view/71/4/lang,en/ Put yourself in their minds, no one recognises your country, how can you be patriotic? Segafreak2 22:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC) If Tibetans were really forbidden to demonstrate during a footbal match in Switzerland, the culprit should be the Swiss government. The Swiss have no backbone to stand up to guard their principle! 166.122.98.179 01:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian

Evaluation by the Tibetan exile community

After reading through this section, I can't help but notice the latter part of it are either full of self-contradictory statements or purely plain PRC bashing. It speaks of the need to improve educational/healthcare access to Tibetans & the ability to compete in the economy, yet rails against the logistical basis on which it must be achieved. How could access to better education come about when people have no ability to migrate and settle in Tibet? How can Tibetans be competitive if they are perpetually kept in the nomadic lifestyles of feudal times? How can Tibetans benefit economically when they remain isolated and have no knowledge of or exposure to people beyond the next hill or mountain? How can the economy improve without the logistical infrastructure to channel in technology, capital, entrepreneurs, and skilled labor? It may be true that Tibetans are by and large unable to compete economically in the status quo. However, by NOT embarking on projects like the railway, they will only remain impoverished, and the socio-economic gap between Tibetans & Hans will be even greater. Have the exiles ever considered these matters?

Also their complaint about the government's efforts to rebuilding their monasteries is nonsensical. Maybe the CCP SHOULD NOT restore those destroyed monasteries, since Tibetans don't like it anyways and the saved expenses could surely be used to buy more guns and bullets for the PLA instead. Maybe they should also stop building schools, hospitals, sewers, water works, transportation, electricity, communications, and anything else that could be used to remind the Tibetans of 'Chinese taint' that once existed there while we are at it. --Lssah 88 15:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It all comes down to Self-determination, which neither Tibetans in exile, nor those in historical Tibet have. Fred Bauder 21:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean non-violence as Dalai Lama suggested to his people isn't a Self-determination?? I thought it took courage to do the non-violent things and not just revert back to fighting... Monkey Brain 14:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Message from A Tibetan Who Doesn't Care What You Think

The people who argue for or against Tibetan Independance on this website are wasting thier time. Your ananlysis of Tibetan historical independance or whether Tibet deserves independance now does not matter. What you know doesn't matter as you can't do anything. For all those people that support Tibet thankyou but there is no point arguing with the Chinese or Chinese sympathisers on this page as it is quite evident that they are ill informed (thanks to google.cn ;-))or just don't want to face the truth.

You are right in that it is a waste of time. Tibetan independence is a pipedream and I expect once the Dalai Lama dies, the whole "Free Tibet" movement will wither and die with him.--Lssah 88 20:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be afraid if the Dalai Lama dies before a settlement on Tibet. In fact, all of central asia should be afraid. The Dalai Lama is one person critical of violence and has been calming those who may wish to use violence to gain freedom. I can say "freedom" because whether or not a nation ever was historically free or a part of some other nation is no criterion to base its right to freedom and independence. Look at the USA. When it started its rebellion against England, it was called treasonous and disloyal. Many thought it had no chance in hell. It was a "pipedream." But as the Irish patriot Pearse said "What if the dream becomes a reality?" So the USA is now reality. Should it revert back to England? Or Pakistan, should it revert back to India? Or India? Should it revert back to England? Or how about we give Europe to Italy since Rome used to control most of it. But I digress.

I am worried that if the Dalai Lama dies, then more violence prone activists will start an uprising. But this time it would destabilize most of central asia, because China would fight like hell and cynically probably grab as much territory as it can. India would have to step in. It could be worse than the latter 1950's and 60's. Let's hope cooler heads and results prevail.--Aishwarya888 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't reply on the google.cn jab. Didnt think you would.

I don't live in the PRC nor am I a PRC citizen, so you can't really accuse me of being a brainwashed commie robot :) Anyways, you ought to know better that mainland Chinese aren't the only ones who supports Chinese rule in Tibet and that the people who takes a stance on this issue are not as black and white as you would think.--Lssah 88 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Which is that China will do whatever the hell it pleases, and no one can stop them, because the Chinese have decided to be masters not only in their own house, but in everybody else's as well. Well, you know what? If you want to climb to the top of the shitheap, be prepared to make enemies of everyone else in the process, and to find that sooner or later (probably sooner) you'll be dragged off like everyone else. Fine, have your glorious time of arrogant empire; such glories are short-lived and meaningless. And when you've all got refrigerators and cars and all that other polluting stuff, you won't be able to breathe or go out in the sunshine just the same as everyone else on the planet. Sure, by keeping Tibet you'll have somewhere to go when the North China Plain is under 20m-100m of seawater, but I hope you bring some soil with you; all that gold and uranium doesn't make for good eating.....Skookum1 17:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You've gone over your head with this Chinese empire crap. If the current government is as expansionist as you claimed, they would not have stopped at Tibet, but have gone all the way to re-integrate ALL those regions that was once part of Imperial China, including Outer Mongolia and northern Vietnam. But last time I've heard, the PRC have been signing border agreements with Russia and India, consequences being she had to relinquish some of her former territorial claims with those countries. Oh yeah, and Mongolia (outer Mongolia) is a recognized sovereign by the PRC. Not exactly the kind of evil empire you were clamoring about is it?--Lssah 88 17:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Didn't China try to invade Vietnam in 1979? Also, they probably do have longterm plans to acquire Bhutan and Nepal. I say this basing it upon my opinion so don't quote me on it as a fact. It's just funny to me that Bhutan now has PLA soldiers in its territory. It's also funny that Maoist insurgents are practicing terrorism in Nepal daily. It is suspected they are funded by China. (Not saying Nepali society is perfect, but no one deserves terrorism.) Whether or not this is actual government policy doesn't mean that some megalomaniacs don't screw around with the neighbors.--Aishwarya888 20:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't an invasion per say as much as a raid into northern Vietnam to show the Vietnamese their Soviet ally was a paper tiger and that agitating China will not go unpunished. The PLA withdrew after Deng felt the border was stabilized, allowing him to focus on China's economic reforms. I am not too familiar with the Bhutan situation, but it looks like all they are doing is building roads in disputed territory. The CCP had nothing to do with those Maoist insurgents, in fact, China is one of the few countries who supplied Nepal with military aid China pledges military aid to Nepal I don't think anyone can really build a case that China have "imperialist intent" with regards to Nepal and Bhutan, considering their chief attention is Taiwan.--Lssah 88 21:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)]

That's what they might say now. But what was this whole "punishment" thing about? Also, who is one country to think they can just go and "punish" another country? "Agitating" China? I thought China was pver and done with the feudalist days. What happened was Vietnam went and deposed Pol Pot from Cambodia, after Pol Pot tried to invade Vietnam several times. The PRC didn't mind that Pol Pot was a lunatic and was being nasty to his own people and to his neighbors. The PRC minded though when Vietnam said "enough" and went to depose him and his craziness from power. Why? Because Pol Pot's miserable excuse for a government was a client state of the PRC. That's why the PLA invaded Vietnam. And from the Vietnamese side, the PLA were defeated and had to withdraw. I put that in just to be fair. They have their side too.

Bhutan and China never settled borders. It's true, but instead of settling them, the PLA is simply doing as they wish inside of Bhutan territory. Why did they not settle with Bhutan first off? Even if some territory is disputed, why take it from Bhutan when China has so much territory already? What? Is PRC stingy?

--Aishwarya888 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam was a Soviet satellite, and the Soviet Union was PRC's enemy. PRC had to neutralize Vietnam's regional ambitions to avoid containment. Even before the war, relations between the two nations was already precarious; Laos was under Vietnamese influence and Vietnam allowed the Soviets to build a base in Cam Ranh Bay. The sovereignty of Democratic Kampuchea was the red line: Beijing cannot tolerate a puppet state friendly to Vietnam/USSR in Cambodia. China's support for Pol Pot was geopolitical and nothing more (The US tacitly supported Pol Pot as well, allowing the Khmer Rouge to have a seat in the UN). Regarding the situation in Bhutan, you can't really build a case that China is infringing on Bhutan's sovereignty (or vice versa), since that area is disputed. It's like saying China is infringing on Japanese territory when a boatload of protestors from Hong Kong plants the PRC flag on Diaoyu island.--Lssah 88 22:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with Lssah on this one thing, at least. The Chinese are supporting the government of Nepal against the Maoists. Their close relationship with the king, in fact, resulted in a noticeably more hostile policy by Nepal toward Tibetan refuges for a while.—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been. Unfortunately their support has only destabilized the country further. I also don't see any open or public condemnation against the Maoists by the PRC. Also, a lot of people suspect the PRC of selling to both sides for profit and to have a hand in any new government, if it ever becomes possible. That's no worse than the USA or other countries. As for Tibetan refugees, that was sad. But you should know that the crackdown is over against refugees, since that king is finished now.--Aishwarya888 10:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Vietnam invaded Cambodia in 1978 and subsequently China invaded Vietnam. In terms of invasion, both Communist Parties in Hanoi and Beijing were nuts. Why only alleging China but acquitting Vietnam? Of course, Pol Pot was a maniac murderer. But Vietnam was not much better in ethnic cleansing half a million refugees to the High Sea and let them fall prey to pirates and sharks? Why double standard? 63.166.120.27 01:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)Ian