[GandalfTheGrey]

- the occupation of Tibet is unlawful

Based on what?

I doubt you could have come up with a more useless and meaningless statement than this...

[ThereBeDragons]

Well, there is no point arguing with that level of rudeness.

You call the people you disagree with despicable, arrogant, ignorant spoiled brats, and now you pull this out.

You can dish it, but you can't take it.

Hilarious.

[Istanbuller]

Chinese are too crowded and Tibetans will be erased in mass Chinese population. It's also not your business of Westerners. You should worry about your country's shitty demographics, Zenno.

[Smertios]

Even if the Tibetans will not go extinct, they will certainly go the way of the Manchurians...

That is to say: their language very well could go extinct within the next 100-200 years and the values and aspects which distinguished them as a culture will disappear unless there is, say, autonomy and respect granted for their language and culture.

The second the schools do not teach in that language, it really has a large risk of it disappearing unless outside of the schools the overwhelming majority of folks insist on doing business in it...

Hmm, that will not necessarily happen. The case with the Manchus was different. The Republicans needed to destroy any type of influence the previous regime could have on the population, so the anti-manchu propaganda began. Even Manchus themselves started adopting Han names etc. This hasn't really happened with other groups.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Personal bickering between TBD and zenno deleted.

Zenno you were being rude and you need to be more civil. Lets just accept that and move on please.

[Verv]

Hmm, that will not necessarily happen. The case with the Manchus was different. The Republicans needed to destroy any type of influence the previous regime could have on the population, so the anti-manchu propaganda began. Even Manchus themselves started adopting Han names etc. This hasn't really happened with other groups.

I think it is definitely within the interests of the Chinese government to essentially hit backspace over the Tibetan people until they are just a historical footnote.

If China were suddenly interested in human rights, this might not happen... But will that be the case? Unlikely.

Tibetans tend to be quite religious and quite rebellious... Why wouldn't they be treated similarly?

[HoniSoit]

If China were suddenly interested in human rights

Fundamentally, it is an issue of constructing a (multi)nation-state.

China as a nation-state is a recent invention. Its origin and early influence can be dated at the end of the 19th century and early 20th century, but it was not until the founding of the People's Republic that China constructed anything that resembled a modern European nation-state, which is essentially something forced upon the Chinese by the spread of Western capitalist world-system (of nation-state).

This construction involved defining clearly delineated borders and exercising military and civilian authority over its territory, which China previously has not done as a non-nation-state. This is why the early decade of the People's Republic was a period of tense territorial disputes with its neighbours, and it is also when China categorised, sometimes very arbitrarily, different nationalities/ethnicities.

The Europeans has gone through this stage a few centuries ago and it wasn't bloodless as European nation-states were given birth. In fact, it is almost always a history of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

China, as a recent nation-state, is still living with the legacy of all the tensions inherent in it, navigating the relations of the dominant ethnic group(s) with other minor ethnic groups struggling for autonomy and independence.

This is not to endorse or excuse what China is doing though.

[Igor Antunov]

The Europeans has gone through this stage a few centuries ago and it wasn't bloodless as European nation-states were given birth. In fact, it is almost always a history of genocide and ethnic cleansing.

China, as a recent nation-state, is still living with the legacy of all the tensions inherent in it, navigating the relations of the dominant ethnic group(s) with other minor ethnic groups struggling for autonomy and independence.

This is not to endorse or excuse what China is doing though.

You make it sound as if China is undergoing instances of genocide and cleansing. In the past 50 years ethnic minorities have exploded in population, i.e the opposite of your european example.

[HoniSoit]

You make it sound as if China is undergoing instances of genocide and cleansing. In the past 50 years ethnic minorities have exploded in population, i.e the opposite of your european example.

I am not saying that at all.

The problem for China, as opposed to the European nation-states in the same stage, is that the world no longer tolerates that kind of systematic bloody genocide and ethnic cleansing Europeans had done to each other so masterfully, nor is there any place for China to expel rebellious ethnic groups to. So these options are ruled out.

China is left with essentially displacing these populations by slowly becoming the majorities in the regions where there is a restless, independent movement. For ethnic minorities that do not challenge China's nation-state, there is no need to do this to them at all. And many of the ethnic groups have basically lost their ethnic identities and very often do not have any link let alone any claim to any territory as their homeland so to speak.

[Igor Antunov]

I don't agree with your historic analysis. Some of the most horrific ethnic and religious domestic conflicts have occured in China, in the past.

[HoniSoit]

Some of the most horrific ethnic and religious domestic conflicts have occured in China, in the past.

Sure. I am not arguing the construction of nation-state creates ethnic and religious conflicts or is the only reason they exist (I think that is your disagreement?), but it exacerbates and perpetuates these ethnic and religious tensions as a result of having to enforce territorial authority in a world of nation-states. I am speaking specifically about the recent historical period: ethnic and religious conflicts are not timeless, they take place in specific historical context which shapes them. You have to explain why this is happening now and the way it is happening. I am trying to give an account of this context.

[Igor Antunov]

Well generally true, but seeing as the country is relatively homogenous, not so much in this case. What separatist movement within china has a realistic chance of even taking off, let alone succeeding? Just ammo for the editorials for decades to come, no more.

[HoniSoit]

Well generally true, but seeing as the country is relatively homogenous, not so much in this case. What separatist movement within china has a realistic chance of even taking off, let alone succeeding? Just ammo for the editorials for decades to come, no more.

I don't disagree with this. I think China is succeeding in homogenising its population ethnically. The separatist movements are not succeeding not only because of the imbalance of armed power - as hugely significant as this is - but also because they lack international support from other, more powerful nation-states, as we are already past the stage of global or even regional nation-state formations and decolonisation. Despite what I think are very good claims by the separatist movements, I doubt any outside power is going to give them more than moral support today.