hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: Chinese Occupation of Tibet

  1. #21
    Toxic's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    WoT Raaage
    Posts
    1,257
    Quote Originally Posted by TheManFromDelmonte View Post
    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.
    After 1864 Germany did the same with Holstein and Schleswig. All of Holstein and a good chunk of Schleswig is part of Germany today.

    States have been doing this for thousands of years. Previously they also raped the women, killed the men and/or enslaved them. What we are seeing today is "soft" annexation.

    Edit: Also, fun fact. Dali Lama has stated that tibetans are no longer seeking a free and indepenent tibet, but to be a region within china with more self-determination than they have today, and respect for the bhuddist religion/culture/way of life.
    Last edited by Toxic; May 10 2013 at 12:36:55 PM.
    Amantus for mod 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

  2. #22
    Dorvil Barranis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    4,867
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    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.
    Couldn't find recent case where a native tribe had majority support for secession from the US, but yeah, they were obviously robbed from their independence during the settling of the US. There are some modern groups pushing for separation from the US, but didn't see any that really had majority support from members.
    "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


  3. #23
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    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.
    The question was more about *should* we do it then *how* we'll do it, but I think we'll get a chance to make China negotiate eventually. If someone convinced a large portion of the 1st world that this will become a worse version of the Israel-Palestine issue, they might be willing to do something serious.

  4. #24
    Straight Hustlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 14, 2011
    Posts
    10,297
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    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.
    Couldn't find recent case where a native tribe had majority support for secession from the US, but yeah, they were obviously robbed from their independence during the settling of the US. There are some modern groups pushing for separation from the US, but didn't see any that really had majority support from members.
    TBH I think a large part of the reason you don't see a bigger push among the native american nations to secede from the USA is because they have become totally reliant upon the monies they recieve from the Federal government, and that the nations are not economically developed enough to cover their own expenses.

  5. #25
    SAI Peregrinus's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 13, 2011
    Posts
    1,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    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.
    Couldn't find recent case where a native tribe had majority support for secession from the US, but yeah, they were obviously robbed from their independence during the settling of the US. There are some modern groups pushing for separation from the US, but didn't see any that really had majority support from members.
    TBH I think a large part of the reason you don't see a bigger push among the native american nations to secede from the USA is because they have become totally reliant upon the monies they recieve from the Federal government, and that the nations are not economically developed enough to cover their own expenses.
    And that we took all the good land, and killed the food sources. The only things they can produce on most of the reservations are casinos. Solar power plants might work, but there are big issues with that.

  6. #26
    Tiny's Avatar
    Join Date
    June 19, 2011
    Location
    Womble is spy!
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by Straight Hustlin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Dorvil Barranis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Rakshasa The Cat View Post
    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.
    Couldn't find recent case where a native tribe had majority support for secession from the US, but yeah, they were obviously robbed from their independence during the settling of the US. There are some modern groups pushing for separation from the US, but didn't see any that really had majority support from members.
    TBH I think a large part of the reason you don't see a bigger push among the native american nations to secede from the USA is because they have become totally reliant upon the monies they recieve from the Federal government, and that the nations are not economically developed enough to cover their own expenses.
    Also, so few survived the original genocides. There were ten nations in california, there are no know survivours to claim their own state.

    edit: I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone, just trying to say that Genocide has been the normal way of doing this through history, Tasmaina by the British, Dacia by the Romans it's how we roll as a species, so the Chinese occupation of Tibet could be alot worse.
    Last edited by Tiny; May 11 2013 at 09:22:39 PM.

  7. #27
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    The Chinese can have it as far as I'm concerned.

    Tbh in real terms this is a non-issue. China has been involved in Tibet since WW2, they've been perfectly happy to allow EU nations and the US muck about with nation-building and colonization within their spheres of influence. The west's silence over Tibet is just an acknowledgement that it lies within their sphere and contains nothing of value to us.

    Note: I'm excluding China's involvement in Korea and Vietnam because those are definitely within her sphere.
    In real politik terms (or however the fuck you spell that), it definitely serves the US interest to remove a massive area from Chinese control, gain a friendly country on their border, and increase prestige/respect for actually caring about ethnic self determination.

    Similar to the reasons we'd benefit from NK imploding tbh.

  8. #28
    Donor Sponk's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    AU TZ
    Posts
    11,403
    Realpolitik would be to accept that tibet just isn't of strategic importance to the US, and fob it off to India to conduct insurgency programs in. That way, you get to see what India is up to (because of course you have spies in Tibet) as well as get intel on how China handles it.
    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."


  9. #29
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    Isn't assuming that Tibet is of no strategic importance to the US pretty bold? It really depends on what our long term for China is. If we just want to slowly help them transition to a democracy and try to make them an ally, then yeah Tibet doesn't matter. If we think they can't be trusted or we want to make sure they never eclipse us as a superpower, then it's in our best interest to fragment their current country along ethnic lines.


    ("our" and "we" in my post refers to the US or the Western powers)

  10. #30

    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Posts
    2,578
    I can't imagine this being a issue unless one believes in ethno-religious states. Well, I do not believe in nation states ought to be a extension of an abstract people, but instead it ought to be a functional bureaucratic machinery that serves universal goals.

    If one believes in moral realism, or anything similar to it, one should not be looking to preserve historical accidents, one should seek to move life towards the betterment. Why should Tibet head toward pre-industrialized theo-aristocracy like Nepal when they can be made to drink coke, eat pizza and play Eve-o like everyone else? Shouldn't they get personal freedom (including increased freedom to migrate for everyone) and wealth from integration with the world economy?

    It is human beings, not abstraction concepts like a ethno groups, religious groups or nation states that can suffer. If all individual humans have a nice life then whatever happens to the larger groups are simply utterly irrelevant and unimportant. Nations really ought be viewed no more sentimentally then companies and no more tears should be shed over reversible or irreversible changes then a reorganization of the internal revenue service.

  11. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    April 18, 2011
    Location
    Only one here to predict a win for God Emperor
    Posts
    12,463
    Quote Originally Posted by I Legionnaire View Post
    If China really is dead-set on becoming a 'bigger' player on the world stage in the vein of America they'll probably try to palm in Burma.
    Too late, Myanmar already switched sides and there's too much political face involved for China to interfere without the West reacting.
    Are you an engineer? -- Quack

  12. #32
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    I think that's what their goal is in Pakistan. China has been pumping tons of money into both Afghanistan and Pakistan to extract resources and cash, but they're also providing the "no strings attached" form of investment that makes them more popular in many parts of the Third World then the US is. I'm not an expert on ports or shipping, but I'm pretty sure Karachi is a massive port and would serve China's purposes well.

  13. #33
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    12,949
    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    This puts an interesting spin on whether the Union was in the right during the American Civil war.
    The United States (Union) was absolutely right about slavery.

    They were absolutely wrong about secession.


  14. #34
    ValorousBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    ( ͡ ͜ʖ ͡)
    Posts
    4,441
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Synapse View Post
    This puts an interesting spin on whether the Union was in the right during the American Civil war.
    The United States (Union) was absolutely right about slavery.

    They were absolutely wrong about secession.
    Wat. It'd be dumb if states could secede. Its the free rider problem, any state that seceded would still be able to leech off a lot of the benefits of having the US next door, but they wouldn't pay taxes to the government. Big states like California, Texas, New York, etc would be all "fuck you guys, we can take care of ourselves". While that's true, they'd fuck over the rest of the states by being selfish.

  15. #35
    Super Moderator Global Moderator QuackBot's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 7, 2012
    Posts
    21,104
    Quote Originally Posted by ValorousBob View Post

    The question was more about *should* we do it then *how* we'll do it, but I think we'll get a chance to make China negotiate eventually. If someone convinced a large portion of the 1st world that this will become a worse version of the Israel-Palestine issue, they might be willing to do something serious.
    But do you want the president seat?

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
  •