Tibet Discussion

[Thanas]

Based on my own experiences, I really would not trust either the Chinese, the Tibetans or the USA reports. Neither are unbiased parties to this conflict.

[Lusankya]

I tend to trust the Chinese reports when they say "this is our policy and these are the things we have been building", but think they likely have varying levels of reliability when it comes to the actual effectiveness of said policies.

As for the territorial claims, apart from thinking that the Dalai Lama's claim over "Greater Tibet" is a masterful move for increasing his pity points with the West while at the same time ensuring that no meaningful dialogue can occur with China, I don't actually give a shit either way. As far as I'm concerned, the issue of whether or not China had any right to take over Tibet in the 1950s is at best tangentially related to the issue of what the best policy for Tibet is currently.

[Broomstick]

Based on my own experiences, I really would not trust either the Chinese, the Tibetans or the USA reports. Neither are unbiased parties to this conflict.

Well, that's the problem - as far as I know there aren't any unbiased reports on the situation.

[mr friendly guy]

Actually, here in the US we do hear about the Hmong/Miao largely because about a quarter million of them came over here after Viet Nam and are settled in several major urban areas - but those weren't necessarily Chinese Hmong, but those in Viet Nam and Cambodia. So who has heard of which minorities is going to vary from place to place. Sometimes people also forget about other groups who are dominant in one of China's neighbors forming a minority in parts of China as Lusankya said Folks actually have heard of China's larger minorities, they just don't always connect them to China.

I am aware you have heard of the Hmong because you have mentioned them several times in various threads. You might not realise that the Chinese call them the Miao, but I was addressing Ando and I never doubted you have heard of the Hmong. Now onto the other point, the four largest ethnic minorities don't have another country where they are the largest ethnic group, being mainly based within the PRC's borders, so yes while China has populations of Uzbeks, Kazakhs and Russians, they aren't that numerous (except for the Kazakhs I believe).

[mr friendly guy]

At a meeting at Simla (Now Shimla) in then British India between 1913 and 1914, British officials reached a deal with Tibet's regional government representatives: the British side would force China's central government to agree Tibet's "independence" and give about 1 million square kilometers of land in neighboring provinces to Tibet. In return, Tibet would give 90,000 square kilometers of border land to British India, according to Sun.

Turns out that Britain liked controlling India so much that they wanted to control even more of it.

Hardly surprising. The British invaded Tibet in 1903 (what, I thought only the Chinese invaded ), and during the accord in 1913-14 they decided on the boundaries between British India and Tibet without the participation of the newly formed Republic of China. This McMahon line would be one of the disputes which lead to the Sino-Indian war of 1962.

Here is a summary of what former British secretary David Millibrand in 2008 said about the line (from a what seems like pro Tibetan source). Hint the term anachronism and colonial legacy doesn't seem much good, moreover this also weakens India's legal claim to the line as being the boundaries between India and the PRC by virtue of the fact that the British couldn't have negotiated with Tibet without China, since they now recognise Tibet as being part of the PRC, as opposed to the old system where Tibet as autonomous, with China having a “special position” there.

[mr friendly guy]

Based on my own experiences, I really would not trust either the Chinese, the Tibetans or the USA reports. Neither are unbiased parties to this conflict.

Well, that's the problem - as far as I know there aren't any unbiased reports on the situation.

There are a few things that are more likely true or false, and I don't think anyone here disagrees with them. Just to elaborate

1. Tibet was a Shangri la which only Richard Gere could believe.

Various western sources also note how shit life was for the slaves serfs of Tibet. This isn't just something the PRC is saying.

Search friendly feudalism and get the cache file here He quotes numerous Western sources for his research. To be fair Free tibet organisations also has their own rebuttal here. To be really fair I will admit I kind of rolled my eyes when he accused the first source of being argumentative, ie to prove a point. Its even funnier when he uses a giant strawman like this line

Parenti does little better in his treatment of history, erroneously stating that the first Dalai Lama was installed by 'the Chinese army'. One would presume that a Yale Ph.D. would know the difference between Chinese and Mongols. But apparently, in the Parenti-Grunfeld-Strong school of history, one word is as good as another and a Chinese is as good as a Mongol, as long as the point gets across.

Now I was naturally amazed that a PhD couldn't tell the difference between Mongols and Chinese, so I read the relevant part.

Here is what Parenti actually did say.

In fact, Tibet's history reads a little differently. In the thirteenth century, Emperor Kublai Khan created the first Grand Lama, who was to preside over all the other lamas as might a pope over his bishops. Several centuries later, the Emperor of China sent an army into Tibet to support the Grand Lama, an ambitious 25-year-old man, who then gave himself the title of Dalai (Ocean) Lama, ruler of all Tibet. Here is a historical irony: the first Dalai Lama was installed by a Chinese army.

In other words the first Grand Lama was installed by Kublai Khan (a Mongol) while the first Dalai Lama was installed by the Chinese army. Wow. An idiot who can't tell the difference between the words "Grand" and "Dalai". I guess since they both have five letters in it, it would naturally cause confusion.

More fallacious and outright bluffing occurs in the rebuttal, which reminds me of a Creationist trying to destroy Richard Dawkins.


2. China is committing Genocide

The CCP has done many things, some fucked up, some beneficial, however they did not ever try to commit genocide on the Tibetans. This claim however still gets thrown around on newsites by ignorant posters. Ironic considering the ethnic Tibetan population is higher than before the Chinese takeover. The PLA soldiers are just bloody incompetent. Maybe we should bring back the Manchu Bannermen <sarcasm>.

I remember reading a thread on a newsite where someone professed outrage at Chinese ethnic cleansing of Tibetans. Quite ironic considering the Dalai Lama in his five point peace plan wants to kick Chinese not just out of the TAR, but neighbouring Chinese provinces as well.

Now Somewhat more controversial

1. China is committing cultural genocide

I guess when they couldn't prove China committed real genocide they change it to the more nebulous "cultural genocide." Presumably he means that Tibetans cultural (language, customs) will change due to the CCP doing this. I think as you pointed out, it seems like no more than "neutral sociological factors". If there is no coercion, I don't see what harm there is.

I remember during the heights of the Tibetan riots, Australian television showed a young Tibetan chap who prior to had visited relatives in Tibet. He said something along the lines of, that they becoming like Chinese and the example he used was that they were eating Chinese food. Maybe the journalist should point out to him that he was wearing Western clothes instead of traditional Tibetan ones.

Its like if <insert ethnic minority here> speaks their language less, and speaks the lingua fraca of that country, it must be some type of oppression. A certain poster who I won't embarassed, (oh what the fuck its Klavohunter), thought this was an anti-minority policy of the CCP. Has he not met immigrants to his own country, who over the generations gradually speak less of their "mother tongue" and more English. If I used the same pseudo logic I would conclude that immigrants are being oppressed as opposed to being integrated and assimilated.

Just for the record, as an ethnic minority living in Australia, I have no qualms about putting a "steak on the barbie" just like the great Aussie tradition because it tastes nice. Back when I was a kid, my dad would host barbecues for all our friends, most of whom were Asian in ethnicity. Nor do I object to watching the Australian sport AFL because I find it entertaining. I also don't object to using English in everyday conversation instead of Mandarin. Quick, I am being oppressed. Call Amnesty International.

On another point, it seems weak to criticise China especially when they put in effort to promote the culture of their ethnic minorities. CCTV or one of the other Chinese television stations have competitions where ethnic minorities perform musical acts in their language etc, kind of like Euro vision, but within one country. IIRC China also has linguists try to develop a written script for ethnic minorities who use a spoken language but no written language of their own.

2. China sovereignty over Tibet

This is obviously going to be a controversial issue. I only hope we don't get like Kane Starkiller's "Tibet part of China. Recognised by who." Sorry, I couldn't help myself with that line since I am ROFL.

Even the most ardent pro China candidate doesn't doubt at one time Tibet was separate from China. In fact they attacked the Chinese Tang dynasty back in the day, and IIRC they weren't friendly with the Song dynasty either. I also don't think even the most ardent free Tibet supporter denies "Greater Tibet" and the rest of the PRC were united under the state known as the Qing dynasty.

The Chinese will argue that Tibet was part of China for looong time, some British historians will put it at around the time of the Qing dynasty, presumably sometime during the reign of the Qianlong emperor, since he kind of sent troops there at the behest of the Dalai Lama to expel Gurkha invaders in around the 1790s. Lets use the British time frame. That timeframe is still longer than the time my country has been independent from the British empire, and as another comparison, around the time Great Britain merged with Ireland to become the United Kingdom.

The argument presumably comes from that when the Qing fell by Han nationalists, did Tibet gained its independence? I don't know what documents were signed when the Qing dissolved, but given the power hungry nature of the warlord who signed it, I doubt he was going to split the country apart the same way the USSR did.

Certainly Tibet was most likely autonomous, but then so were a lot of parts of China during the warlord period, yet no one doubts those parts are now a piece of the PRC. With the exception of Mongolia, I don't believe any other country yet alone a major power recognised complete Tibetan independence, although the British recognised autonomy with China having a special relationship (which in 2008 they revoked that view and wondered why they didn't do it earlier). I don't need to point to examples where countries have parts which the central government doesn't control, but for now are still recognised as not independent for the most part, cough Georgia cough.

In fact as Lus pointed out, the British did try to get the ROC to recognise Tibetan independence, however they refused to do so. AFAIK the British didn't press the issue, most probably because they had more important things to worry about, like Germany.

China's current incarnation, the PRC would no doubt believes it inherits the ROC and hence the Qing's territory as the successor state (minus of course the areas its given up, like Outer Mongolia / Republic of Mongolia, but including Tibet and Xinjiang and he Manchurian provinces). They certainly take on some of the obligations of the previous state(s), for example the ending of the lease of Hong Kong to be returned back to China, was carried out between the UK and the PRC (even though the Qing which signed the accord fell decades before) and the fact the PRC occupies the UN seat reserved for China (even though the formation of the security council's permanent members was negotiated by the ROC).

In any event, its most probably a moot point since even the Dalai Lama opts for autonomy in Tibet rather than independence (not that Beijing trusts him, but thats another story).

3. population numbers and the migration of other ethnic groups into Tibet.

Part of the discrepancy between China and the Dalai Lama's numbers stem from the fact that he considers "Greater Tibet" while the PRC considers only the TAR. Now I am aware they dispute the numbers in the TAR as well. One thing to be aware of, the TGE uses the Chinese government's own figures for his argument. How do I know that? They stated it themselves, in the link I posted earlier, buttressed with phrases like "according to the Chinese statistics", "Chinese government sources now confirm that Chinese outnumber Tibetans". So if the Chinese data is incorrect, its likely the Tibetans using these numbers will also be incorrect. So thats already a problem.

To go further, the Chinese aren't exactly shy of publishing data which shows the population mix of certain "ethnic autonomous regions" to be predominantly populated by Han Chinese. For example

Inner Mongolia - Han Chinese easily outnumber mongols 79% to 17% (from wiki which quotes the Chinese own 2000 census (which is most probably in Chinese and mine is too crap to read it).

The manchurian provinces of
a) Heilongjian (Han Chinese 95% to Manchus 3%, again from wiki quoting the same census)
b) Jilin (Han Chinese 91% to Manchus 4%, again same source)
c) Liaoning (Han Chinese 84% to Manchus 13%, again same source)

Xinjiang- Han chinese 40% to Uyghurs 45% ( although I believe China considers the numbers now roughly equal prior to their 2010 census which is currently being conducted).

Thus it would seem strange why they wouldn't publish data if Han Chinese did outnumber Tibetans in the TAR.

Going on, the next question to ask, is why haven't they swamped the TAR with settlers, and I think you have already answered. Its a combination of
a) why would the Chinese equivalent of Joe Average want to go to the TAR given the environmental conditions

b) how to transport vast numbers there - Mao did think about building a railway there, but China lacked the technology to cope with the extreme climes of Tibet. Until as they manage to build this shiny new railway (sorry, channelling Shep here).

Now it might very well change the demographic of Tibet just like in those other ethnic autonomous zones. Personally, China is not as freer country as we would like. However allowing freedom of movement between regions would help make it freer, thus it seems weak to criticise China because of that. So people usually resort to its wrong to swamp Han Chinese immigrants in traditional lands of the ethnic minorities (I believe that was Klavohunter again). This strikes me as an appeal to tradition, and I am not blind to the fact that if this reasoning will lead to the conclusion that my own country, and several others including the US, Canada, New Zealand etc would be very different, because the immigrants do now outnumber the indigenous population.

This migration itself can became bad for environmental reasons, or if the newcomers discriminate against the minority. That is what I feel we should be focussing on, rather than the fact that Han Chinese outnumber <insert ethnic group> in <insert region here>. There have already been criticism within China about the environmental impact the Qinghai-Tibet railway would have on the wild life for example. I am also not naive to think that just because the government declares no descrimination, its automatically followed by the populace, even in an authoritarian regime like China. However the government at least puts its money where its mouth is by giving ethnic minorities certain privileges, like

a) affirmative action in universities (hey I would have liked that, not that I needed it, but the reassurance would have helped calm the nerves)

b) exempting them from the one child policy (while we don't have anything like here in Australia, we do have the opposite, ie the baby bonus to encourage us to have more kids. If we applied that in Australia, ethnic minorities should get paid for their second child as well as the first child )

c) Attempts at bilingual schools (in news just in, the Northern Territory in my country has scrapped teaching some subjects in the language of the Indigenous people).

d) propaganda to promote the cultures of ethnic minorities. I have also seen the phrase "we are one big family" used quite a lot. It seems like something only a government propaganda department can come up with. And if you really want, I can search my old youtube browsing links for various videos celebrating the fact that they are multi-ethnic. The message isn't very subtle, even if it is in Mandarin. Its like the Chinese equivalent to the Seeker's song "I am, you are, we are Australian", which just also happens to be a song I like.

Sorry if this post is long winded, but I tried to convey what little I know about the subject and my interpretation of it, and which claims are thought are more likely to be true or false.

[Broomstick]

However, it is my understanding that China claims there is no difference between the Tibetans and Chinese except on a cultural level, which flies in the face of facts. Tibetans are physically different from other people in a manner that lets them live permanently at a higher altitude than anyone else.

For what purpose are they claiming this? Going into that line of thought has the potential to lead into the "race is just a cultural and not a biological construct" because the genetic differences between two members of the same race can be larger than two members of difference ethnic groups. However I will point out the Uyghurs look clearly different from Han Chinese, (see this video, she sings in the Uyghur language and then sings in Mandarin Chinese halfway), while this artist who sings the theme from Red Cliff is ethnic tibetan, and if I listened to her singing in Mandarin I would have no idea she is Tibetan.

The point is, if they are using it to argue "lets get along" it sort of ok. If they are using it as we should be one country, its pretty weak because it undermines their own proposed values of being a multi ethnic state, especially when China has ethnic groups which clearly do not resemble Han Chinese living in their borders, the most obvious being the Uughurs and the small Russian minority living in their north.

Thought I'd return to this now that I'm home and have access to my library once again. I do not have the direct source material for the following, but the references I have are clear that it is based on the work of one Lorna Moore of the University of Colorado, with the research being performed between 1982 and 1992. Some of the difficulty of performing this research is that any human being living at high altitude will undergo physical changes to adapt to the environment, and of course Tibetans living in Tibet also share in this changes just as anyone else would. So the research compared not Tibetans to lowlanders but Tibetans to people of other ethnicity who also lived in Tibet at high altitudes, preferably such people who had lived for a very long time in such places, in order to minimize the effects of long-term adaption on the data.

Throughout the world, on average, for every thousand meters of altitude gained the birthweight of full term babies decreases by around 100 grams. This holds true even for the Andean natives who have lived in their own mountains in South America for many generations. The notable exception is... Tibet. Women of Tibetan ethnicity produce full term babies at four thousand meters the same weight as full term term babies at sea level. Particularly in primitive conditions, a 400 gram difference in birthweight could spell the difference between life and death.

The research conducted by Dr. Moore indicated a number of subtle, physiological differences between ethnic Tibetans and Han Chinese living at the same altitude. For example at high altitude the pulmonary artery of nearly all human beings tends to contract, reducing blood flow to the lungs which has the effect of reducing oxygen flow to the rest of the body. Yes, this is the exact opposite of what the body really needs, and it's believed to be related to pre-natal reflexes. In Tibetans, though, this contraction response to low-oxygen environments does not happen. The result is that at high altitudes Tibetans have better blood flow to their lungs and better oxygenation of their bodies than other people do, and this not only affects the ability to perform work at high altitudes it also affects human reproduction.

The uterine arteries supplying blood to their babies are also larger in Tibetan women than non-Tibetan women. Exact measurements are not given, however. Nonetheless, that would also result in better oxygenated babies. On top of that, Tibetan newborns also show about 10% better oxygenation of their blood than non-Tibetan babies at the same altitudes. Not surprisingly, at high altitudes Tibetans babies tend to grow a little bit faster than non-Tibetans, and have fewer breathing problems.

Remarkably, though ethnic Tibetans have slightly fewer red blood cells, and slightly less hemoglobin, than either transplanted lowlanders or people living at sea level. Nor do their bodies increase production of red blood cells and hemoglobin when Tibetans venture to altitudes even higher than those they normally live at. This was, needless to say, an unexpected result and the opposite of what normally happens in human beings, with the body producing more of both the higher you go. It is hypothesized that their hemoglobin is more efficient than that of others, but so far results of studying that are inconclusive. What this counter-intuitive adaption may do, however, is make them resistant to dehydration, which at very high altitudes can bring on blood clots, heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular mayhem in even the healthiest of people as the blood, thickened already with increased red blood cell production, thicken still further with dehydration. (These conditions are part of the reason 1 in 7 attempting to climb Mt. Everest die). Because their pulmonary arteries don't spasm in low oxygen they are much less likely to suffer from high altitude pulmonary edema (HAPE), another killer at extremely high altitudes. These adaptions may also account for why Tibetans are not known to suffer from high altitude cerebral edema (HACE) either, yet another killer. Chronic mountain sickness (which causes headache, dizziness, tinnitus, breathlessness, palpitations, sleep disturbance, fatigue, anorexia, mental confusion, cyanosis, and dilation of veins, though of course how serious it is varies from person to person, and which uncomfortable it usually doesn't kill) is also unknown among Tibetans and again, their thinner blood would account for that.

Instead of increasing red blood cells Tibetan bodies respond to lower oxygen levels by increasing the resting heart rate. This increases oxygenation quickly, without having to wait for blood cells to be produced, and since their blood doesn't thicken up the additional burden on their heart isn't as great, nor does it require as much increase in blood pressure.

In sum, Tibetans are better at extracting oxygen from the air AND subsequently distributing it around their bodies than anyone else. They also have some significant adaptions that make very resistant to any form of "altitude sickness", from minor to major. They may look a lot like their neighbors, but inside they really do have some differences (the conclusion being, I'd suppose, that these high altitude genes are not connected to genes for hair color/texture, eye color, skin color, or skull shape - they're strictly internal traits). This doesn't make them superhuman, of course - Tibetans suffer as well at the very highest altitudes, and most of them use oxygen when climbing Everest just like everyone else (and those that don't can get just as stupid from lack of oxygen as anyone else - the brain needs oxygen, and a lot of it). The most notable difference is that there is no record of a Tibetan getting HAPE or HACE. This doesn't eliminate death from freezing, accidents, or hallucinating a bridge over a crevasse while scaling a mountain.

Of course, I will also hasten to add that they can't be classified as some sort of sub-species of humanity. For one thing, there has been interbreeding with the neighbors throughout history. Reasonably, near neighbors to Tibet are going to display some adaptions, and some folks will have Tibetan ancestry and have inherited the genes that provide such protection. Among other human populations rare individuals also display unusual ability to deal with high altitudes - for example, Reinhold Messner, a European, has reached the summit of Everest more than once without supplemental oxygen. That means he functions better at extreme altitude than most Tibetans! It is entirely possible that he has a fortunate collection of genes acquired through the usual random shuffling that grants him some of the same physical traits as Tibetans (so far as I know, Mr. Messner has not been extensively studied by someone looking specifically for those traits)

Anyhow, this does put the Tibetans in an unusual situation in regards to any "invaders" or colonists or just outsiders marrying into their families. While most isolated populations wound up at a biological disadvantage to outsiders largely due to disease resistance, the Tibetans have a definite and verifiable advantage in their environment. It doesn't matter how long a Han has lived in Lhasa, even if that Han was born in Lhasa and lived his or her whole life at that altitude, that person's body will never be quite as well adapted as a Tibetan born with the full suite of high altitude genes. Tibetans enjoy a physical advantage at altitudes over 2400 meters (where other people start showing signs of altitude sickness) and the higher up you go the better they fare in comparison to most others. They can work better, heal faster (due to better oxygenation of tissues), and reproduce better. On top of that, Han migrating in are going to feel like crap at higher altitudes where Tibetans happily go about their daily lives. Doesn't matter how many Han Chinese migrate to the TAR, the Tibetans will continue to have a physical advantage. Intermarriage will spread these useful genes around to more people, but how much intermarriage will their be? I assume some - I've never heard of two adjacent human populations that didn't mate with each other to some degree. A few Han will, by chance, be able to adapt to the high altitudes as well the Tibetans, just as Mr. Messner did, but they will, indeed, be rare.

So, it's going to be a lot harder for an outside group to migrate into the high regions of Tibet and displace the natives for purely physical reasons.