hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: Chinese Occupation of Tibet

  1. #1
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441

    Chinese Occupation of Tibet

    So I'm posting this less because I have an opinion about this matter, and more because I know very little about it. This is probably the most significant international event/crisis that I know virtually nothing about.

    I've heard that the Chinese government is actively trying to homogenize China by basically settling Han Chinese in the various provinces with ethnic minorities and basically assimilating them. I've also heard it compared to what the US did to the Native Americans. Is this true/a good comparison?

    On that note, should other countries intervene to stop what could possibly be a slow and intentional eradication of smaller cultures in several regions of China? Should this be considered a crime against humanity similar to genocide?

    Tibet specifically is the best example of this. There was a small column in Newsweek or Time or something about this, and basically the Chinese government is paying ethnic Hans to move to Tibet and dilute the Tibetan majority enough to threaten their claim to independence/sovereignty. I dunno about you guys, but that seems really fucked up to me. In some ways, it's worse then the harsh treatment of Tibetans that is normally focused on by the international community because it's so much more insidious.

    Then consider the long term impacts of this strategy. If enough Han Chinese move into Tibet and stay there long enough, this could create an artificial version of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Should foreign countries intervene to stop a situation which could become a massive shitstorm in 50-100 years?

  2. #2
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,416
    Yes it's true, and is typically what you'd expect in this situation (permanent occupation). I'm not sure why you think it's a terrible thing to do, considering the alternatives (lock them up etc)
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  3. #3
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    I think it's fucked up because it's gonna be really hard to reverse. Locking them up would be bad, but in the long term that could be dealt with fairly easily. What happens if enough Han move into Tibet and don't want to leave? Do the Tibetans never get their own country?

  4. #4
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,416
    Yes, that's how activity-based sovereignty is meant to work.
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  5. #5
    Movember 2012
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    5,031
    Short of a brief period during the early twentieth century, Tibet has been a part of China. Why do they deserve to be their own country? Does every cultural minority deserve it's own country? Why are we fixated on preserving endangered cultures?

  6. #6
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Loire View Post
    Short of a brief period during the early twentieth century, Tibet has been a part of China. Why do they deserve to be their own country? Does every cultural minority deserve it's own country? Why are we fixated on preserving endangered cultures?
    You're a god damn dumbass.

    This is the reason why Tibet deserves its own country:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    Aka because they want it. Its simple as that.
    The West has this as building block of international law and while the charter itself does not specifically say weather the nation should get independence the decision has been left to the nation in question.


    

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    It's the same as asking why should the Libyan people get to have a free democracy, or the Egyptian, or the Palestine.

    It's my opinion that the world would be a better place if we had more, smaller, countries rather than large ones. The practical application of unions and defense pacts between countries has progressed far enough that consolidating into a single country no longer offers the same benefits as before.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  8. #8
    מלך יהודים Zeekar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    15,075
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    It's the same as asking why should the Libyan people get to have a free democracy, or the Egyptian, or the Palestine.

    It's my opinion that the world would be a better place if we had more, smaller, countries rather than large ones. The practical application of unions and defense pacts between countries has progressed far enough that consolidating into a single country no longer offers the same benefits as before.
    Yeah except when one of the remaining superpowers does something and nobody can do any thing about it.


    

  9. #9
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Loire View Post
    Short of a brief period during the early twentieth century, Tibet has been a part of China. Why do they deserve to be their own country? Does every cultural minority deserve it's own country? Why are we fixated on preserving endangered cultures?
    You're a god damn dumbass.

    This is the reason why Tibet deserves its own country:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    Aka because they want it. Its simple as that.
    The West has this as building block of international law and while the charter itself does not specifically say weather the nation should get independence the decision has been left to the nation in question.
    Zeekar is pretty much right here. People should be able to choose how they are ruled. If you have to send in the military to bring them back into your country, either 500 years, 50 years, or 5 years after they were last your citizens, then you're doing it wrong.

    This puts an interesting spin on whether the Union was in the right during the American Civil war. Maybe I would say the union should have let the confederates secede and then declared war to stop them from using slaves? I doubt that war would have progressed in the same way with the same amount of union support. Which is actually kinda fucked up.

    Still, Zeekar's position is mine as well.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Zeekar View Post
    Yeah except when one of the remaining superpowers does something and nobody can do any thing about it.
    Which is why I mentioned unions / alliances.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  11. #11
    Keorythe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,369
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    Tibet specifically is the best example of this. There was a small column in Newsweek or Time or something about this, and basically the Chinese government is paying ethnic Hans to move to Tibet and dilute the Tibetan majority enough to threaten their claim to independence/sovereignty. I dunno about you guys, but that seems really fucked up to me.
    Going to play a bit of devils advocate here. Compare this to the current migration of Mexicans and South Americans into the United States. Most of which are illegal but have a loophole for their children (aka anchor babies). At present rate the population growth of American Latinos has already eclipsed other minority groups and may eventually become a majority.

    If Han Chinese are legally migrating to the country, why or why not is it as you put it "fucked up"?

  12. #12
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,416
    Weeeeeell, invading, then making it legal to immigrate is a bit cheaty.
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  13. #13
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    A Forest
    Posts
    943
    You can't really fully understand the impact of the Chinese occupation of Tibet without understanding the exile of the 14th Dalai Lama. China continues to persecute and oppress Buddhism, even stealing away a child believed to be the reincarnation of a past Lama. Nobody seems to know what happened to this kid.

    Peace and compassion, it seems, are not acceptable to the Chinese government.

  14. #14
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,416
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea Griffin View Post
    Peace and compassion, it seems, are not acceptable to the Chinese government.
    I still don't think you get it. China plays hardball because

    a) it gets results
    b) nobody is going to stop them

    If I were the emperor of China, I'd do the same thing.
    Contract stuff to Seraphina Amaranth.

    "You give me the awful impression - I hate to have to say - of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position. Ever."


  15. #15
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    A strategy being practical and a strategy being moral are two different things. I assume Andrea Griffin's was more about "why we should stop them" and less about "why I'm surprised they're doing it".

    Quote Originally Posted by Keorythe View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    Tibet specifically is the best example of this. There was a small column in Newsweek or Time or something about this, and basically the Chinese government is paying ethnic Hans to move to Tibet and dilute the Tibetan majority enough to threaten their claim to independence/sovereignty. I dunno about you guys, but that seems really fucked up to me.
    Going to play a bit of devils advocate here. Compare this to the current migration of Mexicans and South Americans into the United States. Most of which are illegal but have a loophole for their children (aka anchor babies). At present rate the population growth of American Latinos has already eclipsed other minority groups and may eventually become a majority.

    If Han Chinese are legally migrating to the country, why or why not is it as you put it "fucked up"?
    Semi interesting point, but not at all comparable. First of all, the US has defined ourselves as a land of immigrants, Tibet has not. Second, Latino immigrants are mostly assimilating into American culture while also changing it a little (mostly for the better, Mexican food is legit). In stark contrast, Han culture is being purposely transplanted to Tibet in order to smother and wipe out Tibetan culture. Third--as Sponk said--it's only "legal" because China is a dictatorship and they do whatever the fuck they want.

    Quote Originally Posted by Loire View Post
    Short of a brief period during the early twentieth century, Tibet has been a part of China. Why do they deserve to be their own country? Does every cultural minority deserve it's own country? Why are we fixated on preserving endangered cultures?
    This better be a troll, because it's ignoring thousands of years of Tibetan history in which they were NOT part of China.

  16. #16
    Donor
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    A Forest
    Posts
    943
    Quote Originally Posted by Sponk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea Griffin View Post
    Peace and compassion, it seems, are not acceptable to the Chinese government.
    I still don't think you get it.
    No, I do get it. I just find it to be evil and tragic.

  17. #17
    Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    3,111
    Quote Originally Posted by Sponk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Andrea Griffin View Post
    Peace and compassion, it seems, are not acceptable to the Chinese government.
    I still don't think you get it. China plays hardball because

    a) it gets results
    b) nobody is going to stop them

    If I were the emperor of China, I'd do the same thing.
    I think you've just been called an Evil and Tragic potential Chinese emperor. Where else can you earn that title, eh?

  18. #18
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,993
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    Should foreign countries intervene to stop a situation which could become a massive shitstorm in 50-100 years?
    What exactly do you think foreign countries can do to intervene? Invade? Stop trading with China? China doesn't really care what others have to say about Tibet, so not sure what sort of intervention you think should be considered.

    Not trolling, but Self-Determination does not mean that everybody who wants their own country is going to get it. The Union didn't let the Confederates leave the US. Another example, the Alaskan Independence Party was denied the right to put secession on their ballot in 2006, being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
    "Those who are skilled in combat do not become angered, those who are skilled at winning do not become afraid. Thus the wise win before they fight, while the ignorant fight to win." - Zhuge Liang


  19. #19
    Donor TheManFromDelmonte's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    5,021
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post
    I've heard that the Chinese government is actively trying to homogenize China by basically settling Han Chinese in the various provinces with ethnic minorities and basically assimilating them. I've also heard it compared to what the US did to the Native Americans. Is this true/a good comparison?
    I would've said the english and ireland is the best comparison. We invaded, settled people in there and took over as much as possible. It's still a mess even now.

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Not trolling, but Self-Determination does not mean that everybody who wants their own country is going to get it. The Union didn't let the Confederates leave the US. Another example, the Alaskan Independence Party was denied the right to put secession on their ballot in 2006, being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
    If you'd brought up an example of how the former native inhabitants of Northern America were denied their own country then it would make sense in this context, however neither the Confederates nor Alaskan Independence Party are really comparable. Those are more equivalent to Taiwan than Tibet, and have different foundations as relates to arguments towards independence as nation states.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •