131–140 of 234 posts
Uighurs who have fled from there to Afghanistan are not happy with recent developments
https://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/afghanistan-uyghurs-...
Lots of seemingly unwarranted gray comments in this thread.
A reminder of how great life was for Tibetans under the feudal, theocratic serfdom of the lamas [1]. [1] “In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned…
How does that justify taking over their land/people? If this is really their excuse, it sounds to me like the same kind of justification Spain had when conquering the Native empires of Aztecs and Incas. Maybe they should have helped them without wiping out the culture? I'm still learning details of this, but I think ultimately it is very hard to justify persecution of peaceful monks.
A reminder of how great life was for Tibetans under the feudal, theocratic serfdom of the lamas [1]. [1] “In old Tibet there were small numbers of farmers who subsisted as a kind of free peasantry, and perhaps an additional 10,000 people who composed the “middle-class” families of merchants, shopkeepers, and small traders. Thousands of others were beggars. There also were slaves, usually domestic servants, who owned…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also Tibetans aren't the majority in Shanghai, just Tibet - Like native Americans on current reservations, which continued to shrink in size for a long time.
Yeah, the chinese government is looking for a way to get rid of the Tibetans. The Americans have done well in ensuring the native population has lost power and are shrinking. The end goal of china is to be rid of their Tibetan scourge, just like the Americans would like it if the natives stopped existing
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is difficult, only 8.17% were Han in Tibet according to the 2010 census (probably higher now, but far from 50%), not including military stationed there. Even with the subsidies they are providing, life is fairly hard in Tibet due to the high altitude. Even the high altitude areas of adjacent provinces (which were formerly part of Tibet) don't have many Han in them.
And that's crazy to me. I would have figured that with the CCP having ~1.5 billion people to choose from, that they could move a few million Han into Tibet (current pop. according to google: 3,648,100). Even just 1-2 mil could potentially accomplish the CCP's goals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate that you took the time to elaborate in length, but that's a lot of hand-waving in here. I think it would be much more in the spirit of HN to make shorter but source-backed statements.
Yep, I wished I can escape from my boring programming job writing C++ code, and work full-time on historical study and political research into modern history of China and its interactions of the world. This is the best I can do. And for the most part, I am showing the rationale behind a typical Chinese person might think about the western views, and some of the historical basis. Backed by some form of limited persona…
Some of the passages you shared sounds a lot like propaganda. Here are those:
> Invasion was labeled liberation. If you look at the economy and production level of Tibet before CCP's invasion, certainly CCP have brought modern production means and built a much better economy in Tibet.
You're comparing 1950's Tibet to now. Could they have not done well for themselves on their own?
> As for how much was lost in the process, I don't see much. Tibetan still lives a quite traditional way. They certainly are not bothered by the CCP's presence.
This could be 100% false, and you would not know.
> As obviously, to maintain CCP's ruling, Tibetan have been treated much better than the mass majority elsewhere.
China has used violence on the Tibetans. It's not obvious China wants to treat Tibet well.
> Even their lands were largely left for their own use, because immigrants from inland do not perform farming work, and mostly live in concentrated urban area.
Just because Han don't want Tibetan farmland does not mean it belongs to Tibet.
Edit: Thanks for being open minded. I’m glad we can come together and have discussions on topics like these. I will gladly criticize my own government on their injustices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>"...seen blatant external interference in China’s internal affairs related to Xinjiang..., Tibet..., Hong Kong...." Yup, classic disinformation method - just assume the conclusion and blame someone else. The reason that othet nations have something to say about it is that CCP is blatantly overstepping their rights in those regions. CCP is an invader, not the rightful ruler. They're starting the same incrementalism…
*Let me shed some light on the CCP's propaganda, and explain a bit why your statements might meet a deaf ear.* I present this to showcase the rationale behind many pro-China netizens living in China (both ethnic Chinese and non-Chinese). Note that I could not give detailed references, because I am not a professional political scientists or historian, and I do not keep such records. Hopefully it opens a window for mor…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have yet to meet someone IRL who thinks what was done to native Americans was just and also condemns the CCP for their treatment of minorities.
> yet to meet someone IRL who thinks what was done to native Americans was just By was, I presume you mean five years ago, as the US broke the Treaty of Fort Laramie, pepper spraying and sicing guard dogs on natives in Standing Rock in order to build an oil pipeline. The natives testified at the UN human rights council as to what was happening. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Access_Pipeline_prote...
[*] Very few countries are as homogenized as PRC with only 8% minorities, of which realistically less than 1% will be subject to heavy sinicization efforts. Diverting disproportionate national resources to integrate restive frontier regions is not prohibitive at PRC scale. This model simply doesn't work for countries with 10/20/30+% minorities that must all be integrated simultaneously. So ironically it will work best in increasingly nativist wealthy countries that rely on managable amounts of immigration.