Tibet Discussion

[Broomstick]

Rather than side track the WikiLeaks thread I'm taking this to here - a discussion about Tibet. Allow me to quote the relevant posts that inspired this thread:

First:

At best, the lesser of two evils, but I'm not yet convinced the Chinese in Tibet are an actual good.

You know what theocracies look like, don't you?

Yes, yes I do. However, from what I read - and here in the pro-Dalai Lama US it's hard to find anything that doesn't portray him as a wonderful, saint-like creature - I'm not sure the Chinese are a good thing for Tibet, either. And let me explain before people go roaring off half-cocked.

Yes, unquestionably the Chinese have done some good things in Tibet. I am aware that there are many Tibetans in Tibet who like the current situation better than the prior one. 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. I also have heard that the Chinese government is trying to encourage Han colonization of Tibet. I expect that one such motivation is China's population density elsewhere, which is completely understandable. However, I have also heard that ethnic Tibetans fear becoming an ethnic minority in their own homeland as there are so many more Han than Tibetans. Sort of like what happened to the Native Americans and the Australian Aborigines. Yeah, we know how well that turned out for the natives. Living under a theocracy sucks. I'm not sure trading it for being a tiny minority in your own country, with loss of your own land, language, culture, and ethnic identity is so much better. Of course, there are definite differences between those groups and the Tibetans - the Tibetans aren't at such a technological disadvantage, and the extreme altitude in some locations means that even if you move a lot of other people in they're not going to be able to sustain a population without continual immigration from outside (the locations are so high non-Tibetan women find it very difficult to sustain a pregnancy to term. Even in slightly lower places, non-Tibetan women have a notably higher incidence of miscarriage, premature birth, low birthweight babies, and lowered fertility. Pregnant Han women in such areas are encouraged to seek lower altitudes when pregnant according to a book I read by a researcher working in the area). Unfortunately, for this scenario, there really are a lot of Han.

If that sounds like a lot of "maybes" it is - because of where I live it's very difficult to get unbiased information about Tibet, although the internet makes that easier these days. The longer the Tibetans remain dominant in Tibet, the better their material lives, and so on the more I'm coming to think China is not the bad guy here. On the other hand, I am also certain that China annexed/retook/whatever Tibet for the benefit of China, not the benefit of the ethnic Tibetans. If it so happens those two interests coincide that's great - but if they don't China is going to call the shots simply because they're a juggernaut and Tibet is not. Now, if someone can point me to a valid source of information that shows the vast majority of Tibetans are happy with the new Tibet, want the Chinese to stay, don't fear obliteration, and so on I am prepared to change my mind. I just have not seen such information myself. Very frustrating, as I know much of what I get here about Tibet is so horribly biased but I'm not going to kneejerk into thinking China is automatically good just because the Dalai Lama's theocracy sucked yak-balls for everyone but the elite. It's entirely possible to replace one nasty form of government with another.

So - if China is a good thing for Tibet, help me change my mind. Point me to a source of information.

Then:

So - if China is a good thing for Tibet, help me change my mind. Point me to a source of information.

Have you read the Chinese Report on the Economic and Social Development of Tibet? Alternatively, there's the White Paper on Fifty Years of Democratic Reform in Tibet, which is a much more propaganda-ey, but gives more details on the differences between the older system and the reforms instituted by the central government.

Now, I'll leave it to you how much you want to believe it, but statistics like "opened up 1,017 schools" don't really leave much to be interpreted or fudged. It's also worth noting that while Tibet has periodically experienced disturbance since China gained control, the 2008 riots were the first since liberation that were not predominantly led by monks. Up until that stage, I suspect that the majority of Tibetans were more or less satisfied with the state of affairs. I'm not even sure how much the riots actually suggest that the majority of Tibetans are dissatisfied with the current system, any more than I'm sure how much riots in Paris suggest that the majority of French are dissatisfied with their current system.

This quote is the most telling, I think, in regards to whether or not the Chinese government has been better for Tibet than an Independent state is this one:

Analyses of relevant statistics [5] show that the central government's transfer payments to Tibet amounted to 201.9 billion yuan between 1959 and 2008 and the figure totaled more than 154.1 billion yuan between 2001 and 2008, making up 93.7 percent of Tibet's financial revenue in the same period. This means that for every 100 yuan that Tibet spent, over 90 yuan came from the central

Now, I'm not going to comment on what the Dalai Lama would have been like as a ruler had he remained in Tibet. He was still a young man when China came in, and I don't think that even the Dalai Lama knows the Dalai Lama well enough to know what kind of leader he would have turned out to be in a hypothetical alternate universe where Tibet remained an autonomous nation.

I do however, think it is fair to say that whatever policies the Dalai Lama would have attempted to implement in Tibet, he would have had to effect them on a budget 1/10th of the size of the current budget. Even if a hypothetical 14th Dalai Lama in charge of an independent Tibet wanted to build something like the Qinghai-Tibet railway, he would not have been able to do so without strong outside investment, which seems unlikely unless China for some reason decided that the development of its poorer neighbour was somehow more important than developing its own territory which seems unlikely, given that Tibet's neighbours all have their own troubles to worry about.

And that's long enough for an OP, except to say if the mods don't like it in History I encourage them to put it where they feel it is more appropriate, I just thought that since any discussion of "Is Tibet better off under the Chinese or not?" would of necessity have to delve into recent history.

[Broomstick]

Now, I'll leave it to you how much you want to believe it, but statistics like "opened up 1,017 schools" don't really leave much to be interpreted or fudged.

But what do they teach in those schools? I've been hearing that in schools in the Xinjiang Autonomous Province, only Chinese is used in the schools and universities. One of the arguments that Chinese critics use is that the government is exporting primarily the Han culture and assimilating everyone else. Schools would just be another example of this.

I have not fully digested the two linked documents, however, I believe I have read enough to answer this somewhat on a very crude level.

Indeed, there has been an accusation in the West that China ruthlessly suppress indigenous Tibetan language. I do not use the word "accusation" lightly, as there are both connotations of criminal/cruel intent and a lack of evidence, at least from western sources. Such accusations conjure up some of the worst abuses under western governments, such as the suppression of Irish Gaelic by the British and stripping of US Natives of their culture and language by forcibly sending their children to boarding schools (as just two examples).

The two documents Lusankya linked to do address this, and in language that leads me to assume they were interested in addressing this not only for domestic consumption but also for external audiences. These two documents (and boy, Lusankya, you weren't kidding about propaganda and the second one!) emphasize very strongly that not only are these school public education (as opposed to the prior monastery schools) but that bilingual education is effectively mandatory across Tibet for both primary and secondary education. This would certainly kick to the curb any comparison with the prior mentioned western abuses, which incorporated such things as physical beatings for students who slipped and spoke a few words of the forbidden language. Apparently, Tibetan language education is also offered in nearby provinces, which makes sense given that there ethnic Tibetans there as well, and logically most people inclined to settle in Tibet probably come from those areas.

So no, there is no systematic plan to exterminate the Tibetan language. Indeed, China seems to be making some effort to preserve it.

Of course, Chinese (I'm not clear on which "Chinese" is referred to in these documents, as I'm well aware there is more than one - presumably, it would be whatever dialect is spoken by the majority Han. Mandarin? Lusy, help me out with that, will you?) is a much more powerful and dominant world language than Tibetan. There is clearly incentive for Tibetans to use Chinese more and more, as the power and prevalence of that language confers definite advantages to the user. Over time Tibetan may be used less and less even in Tibet for commerce and public life not due to any malice or plan on the part of China but rather due to social and human factors played out again and again. Rome did not have to deliberately stamp out indigenous languages in its empire for those languages to decline or hybridize with Latin, it's just that Latin was so damn useful everybody had an incentive to learn and use it, even on a crude level. This is seen to a lesser extent with certain dominant dialects suppressing lesser ones in a variety of countries such as France and England, and probably others (I only mention those two because those are ones I know anything about), again, not through malice but for reasons of social-political dominance and usefulness. It's one reason why Russian became popular in the Eastern Block (there may have been others). This is also why English is spreading like the mange throughout today's world - it's just useful. Meanwhile, more and more nations find themselves dealing with the problem of wanting to preserve their native tongue yet also wanting access to the opportunities of a major world language like English, Russian... or Chinese.

Regardless of the benevolence (or lack thereof) of China in the future, Tibet will have this struggle as well. Logically, Tibetans who learn major world languages will benefit more than those who don't, and since they are part of China now the most common one learned is going to be Chinese. Should those same people become, through daily use, more fluent in Chinese, or more comfortable with it than Tibetan, then they will start speaking Chinese throughout all or nearly all of their private as well as public life. This will diminish Tibetan, and no need for malice to be involved. It's not China's fault. The best China can do (in my opinion) is to promote Tibetan while equally giving the opportunity to learn Chinese to the Tibetans. That way, if Tibetan declines it will be the result of peoples' personal, uncoerced choices and larger, neutral sociological forces. No force or malice involved. Most likely, for the foreseeable future, even if Tibetan declines significantly it will continue to exist as a language.

Of course, this concerns solely the language used, not the actual course content, which could also have a significant impact. If students are beat over the head with "China=good, others=bad" that is not conducive to maintaining indigenous culture. Granted the prior theocracy had a lot of really shit characteristics and that needs to be part of history, but there's a difference between teaching the past and teaching that one's culture is backward shit to be discarded.

Really, after reading those two documents I'm starting to think of Tibet as the West Virginia of China - poor, mountainous, most of the population horribly exploited and uneducated, language issues, grinding poverty, problems of the local culture being seen as backward.... even a couple of secession events.

[Big Phil]

There's no doubt that from an objective point of view, Tibet is better off (today) under the Chinese than it was under the Dalai Lama. The question, however, is how would Tibet have been today if the Dalai Lama had never been booted? Would he have modernized the country the same way the Chinese have? Would he have relaxed the religious laws? I don't really see how anyone could realistically argue that a religious zealot would have been a better ruler than the Chinese pseudo-communists, but I can easily see how someone would prefer a homegrown despot over a foreign despot.

[Thanas]

Moved.

[Broomstick]

There's no doubt that from an objective point of view, Tibet is better off (today) under the Chinese than it was under the Dalai Lama. The question, however, is how would Tibet have been today if the Dalai Lama had never been booted? Would he have modernized the country the same way the Chinese have? Would he have relaxed the religious laws? I don't really see how anyone could realistically argue that a religious zealot would have been a better ruler than the Chinese pseudo-communists, but I can easily see how someone would prefer a homegrown despot over a foreign despot.

Well, what sort of man is the current Dalai Lama?

I recall a friend of mine who was a devout Buddhist who finally had an opportunity to meet the Dalai Lama and came back extremely disillusioned at the corruption surrounding him. Of course, being a devout Buddhist she was still convinced the man was living saint or whatever, but it got me to wondering just what sort of "wonderful", "saintly" figure he is, if he really is surrounded by the level of corruption she describes. Also, that's anecdote, not data, but she's not the only person to make such accusations.

The best outcome would have been for the Dalai Lama to be a benevolent despot, an enlightened monarch who moves the country in a new direction (call it progressive or modern or whatever) through his own will. While that is possible in one sense, I don't recall them being very common in history, and usually involved some pressure from the level of society immediately below, or some other external influence. Tibet is still pretty isolated, even more so in the 1900-1950 era. I don't see an external influences that would have that effect acting on the country. I don't see the 5% elite agitating for that sort of change either. That leaves the Dalai Lama himself - and we can only guess based on his own personal character in this reality.

I can't really say from what little I know. The current one, the 14th, has been on recorded as saying that the Dalai Lama as an institution may have outlived its usefulness and that there may be no 15th (let's not get too deep into whether or not he reincarnates, or if he does, if he has any control over the process). He has mentioned possibly putting the idea of continuing or not continuing the institution to a vote of the Tibetans... but perhaps that is the influence of exile and experience in the larger world speaking. If he had remained in isolated Tibet all his life would he say the same?

[weemadando]

Tibet under the Lama's was a third world theocratic feudal system.

Tibet under China is a second-ish world racist repressive kleptocracy/oligarchy.

Choose your poison.

[Big Phil]

He's probably a bit like the pope, would be my guess. A decent, if old-fashioned and out of touch, man at heart, but at the tip of a massive bureaucracy whose sole purpose is to maintain itself by whatever means necessary. So you've got the Catholic Church, which spent the last several decades preaching the evils of condoms, finally (sort of) reversing itself and saying condoms are okay... and this is an organization that is relatively progressive by religious standards. Much of the reason the Catholic Church has moved even the short distance it has is because the rest of (democratic) society has progressed much farther, leaving the Church to (reluctantly) play catch up.

Now, what would the current Dalai Lama have done differently, had the Chinese not invaded in 1950?
1. He is nominally in favor of democracy, although I suspect a lot of that has to do with the fact that he has no power. If he were still the dictator of Tibet he might not be quite so eager to turn over power to the people of Tibet.
2. Economically, he is Marxist, so he's not exactly a huge fan of the West or the Communist Chinese.
3. He's an environmentalist who is concerned about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.
4. He would like for Tibet to become a self-governing Democracy, but also to bar ethnic Chinese from immigrating to Tibet

So in a nutshell, the Chinese have built schools, power plants, roads, hospitals, etc., to Tibet. They've brought Tibet (by force) into the 21st Century, and measurably improved the lives of every Tibetan citizen. Would the Dalai Lama have done the same had he not exiled himself in 1959?

I seriously doubt it. Given that these opinions formed while he was in exile (and may not have ever formed had he still been in charge), I suspect that were Tibet still governed by the Dalai Lama, it would be even poorer and an even shittier place to live than it is currently. Notice that equal rights for women, education, literacy, and health are not his priorities... one can argue how important they are to the Chinese, but when it comes to putting one's money where one's mouth is, the Chinese have done it. The Dalai Lama pretty much just talks a good game.

EDIT - fixed dates

[Broomstick]

Tibet under China is a second-ish world racist repressive kleptocracy/oligarchy.

By all means expand upon this claim. Lusankya's linked documents are positively radiant with self-praise for the Chinese influence in modern Tibet. If you have reliable counter sources by all means share them.

[Rabid]

The best outcome would have been for the Dalai Lama to be a benevolent despot, an enlightened monarch who moves the country in a new direction (call it progressive or modern or whatever) through his own will. While that is possible in one sense, I don't recall them being very common in history, and usually involved some pressure from the level of society immediately below, or some other external influence. Tibet is still pretty isolated, even more so in the 1900-1950 era. I don't see an external influences that would have that effect acting on the country. I don't see the 5% elite agitating for that sort of change either. That leaves the Dalai Lama himself - and we can only guess based on his own personal character in this reality.

Gentlemen, behold ! Bhutan !

I think this example can give us a possible answer to the question :
"What could have Tibet become if it had been left alone by China ?"


Short answer :
Democracy can emerge from the will of the King of an Absolute Monarchy, and successfully become "Asia's most happy place" *cough*

Bhutan's most famous invention :
Gross National Happiness

[Broomstick]

Now, what would the current Dalai Lama have done differently, had the Chinese not invaded in 1950?
1. He is nominally in favor of democracy, although I suspect a lot of that has to do with the fact that he has no power. If he were still the dictator of Tibet he might not be quite so eager to turn over power to the people of Tibet.

Is he nominally in favor of democracy, or does he give that impression to those who are democratic and a different impression to those who are not?

2. Economically, he is Marxist, so he's not exactly a huge fan of the West or the Communist Chinese.

And why is that? If he had remained in Tibet would have have remained in favor of the feudal system under which he grew up? Is he Marxist due to Chinese influence? Some other reason? Does it fit more in line with his religious dogma?

3. He's an environmentalist who is concerned about climate change and greenhouse gas emissions.

As an aside - I find it intriguing that the Chinese have, apparently, encouraged the use of hydro-electric generation (which Tibet, with all those mountains, should have in abundance), solar, wind, and locally generated natural gas rather than importing the external, petroleum dependent energy production and use of the outside world. Of course, Tibet drinks petroleum, too, but they probably generate more of their power from "green" sources than most other nations.

4. He would like for Tibet to become a self-governing Democracy, but also to bar ethnic Chinese from immigrating to Tibet

If the documents Lusankya posted are accurate, ethnic Chinese immigration is not a huge social force for concern at this point. Tibet remains over 90% Tibetan, with Tibetans occupying most government and administrative posts in the province. They aren't crowding out the Tibetans, especially since the Tibetans are not under the one-child rule and can have as many offspring as they desire, which will help them keep their demographic advantages in Tibet (along with simply being able to reproduce better than outsiders due to local adaption to an extreme altitude). On the other hand, the Han bring in capital and expertise. It starts to sound like the Dalai Lama is prejudiced towards the ethnic Chinese. Granted, he no doubt has some personal reasons for animosity. Nonetheless, it seems that his desire to bar ethnic Chinese may not be in Tibet's best interests.

[Broomstick]

Gentlemen, behold ! Bhutan !

I think this example can give us a possible answer to the question :
"What could have Tibet become if it had been left alone by China ?"


Short answer :
Democracy can emerge from the will of the King of an Absolute Monarchy, and successfully become "Asia's most happy place" *cough*

Yes, that would probably qualify as "best case scenario"....

[Pelranius]

The Dalai Lama is not a very good statesman. During all his negotiations with the Chinese, he insists (probably at the behest of the various exiles from the Amdo and Kham regions) that all administrative regions designated as Tibetan (prefectures, counties and what not), regardless of actual number of Tibetans living there, be turned to under an 'autonomous Tibetan government'. Problem is that including all that area would make the Tibetans a minority and much of that area hasn't been ruled by Lhasa for at least four hundred years.

I think it's probably because His Eminence doesn't have the heart to tell of the Khampas, who live in Sichuan and make up a disproportionately large number of the exiles.

[mr friendly guy]

I believe the Dalai Lama claims the surrounding areas where Tibetans live, even outside the Tibetan Autonomous Region (TAR). If you count those areas + the TAR, then Tibetans will be a minority against the Han Chinese who have lived in the surrounding areas for hundreds of years. However if you count the TAR, then Tibetans are EASILY the majority in that area, despite selective quotes from the liberal Western Media, ie "we are now the guests in our own homeland," jazz.

I am off to work now, so I can't look this up, but perhaps someone more knowledgeable can confirm for me, I have heard that someone asked him what will happen to the Han Chinese living in the areas around the TAR in his hypothetical "Greater Tibet" under his rulership. I believe he said they should get out. Now this could be hearsay, so if anyone knows of this, just post a link. Right now, I can't look it up.

[Broomstick]

I believe one of his predecessors did expel the Han from the current TAR. Granted, he's not that guy... except he claims to be the reincarnation. Statement like that incline me to believe he's not as benevolent as he is portrayed to be.

[weemadando]

Tibet under China is a second-ish world racist repressive kleptocracy/oligarchy.

By all means expand upon this claim. Lusankya's linked documents are positively radiant with self-praise for the Chinese influence in modern Tibet. If you have reliable counter sources by all means share them.

Living standards have increased significantly due to the proliferation of modern knowledge, hence the rise from third to second-ish world. In no way shape or form will you find me saying that there hasn't been significant positive change in Tibet in that regard.

Racist/repressive - we've seen the issues that have been arising from Han "colonialism" and the constant heckling/minor uprisings by Tibetans. It could be handled better by China to say hte least.

Kleptocracy/Oligarchy - they're part of China and that's what it is.

Personally I'll take modern medicine and development with an absentee and at times abusive landlord, over being forced to work as a serf for a bunch of monks who reserve the right to take anything that they want from you or your family and can order you and arbitrarily punish you for any crime real or imagined.

[K. A. Pital]

Kleptocracy/Oligarchy - they're part of China and that's what it is.

China is not an oligarchy, though. The oligarchs in China might have a disproportional amount of power and they might be merging with the power in some cases, but they are subject to state pressure and have not yet successfully subdued the state system. China is a bureaucratic autocracy.

[Broomstick]

Living standards have increased significantly due to the proliferation of modern knowledge, hence the rise from third to second-ish world. In no way shape or form will you find me saying that there hasn't been significant positive change in Tibet in that regard.

Sounds more like they started out fourth world or something - getting a mandatory 6 years of education vs. none - huge improvement, but man, that was a low point to start from.

Racist/repressive - we've seen the issues that have been arising from Han "colonialism" and the constant heckling/minor uprisings by Tibetans. It could be handled better by China to say hte least.

Given the Dalai Lama's statements about expelling all Han, I suspect the racism part is not all on the Chinese side. And arguably the Chinese are less repressive than the old system. Doesn't mean it's all good, but it looks like incremental improvement how things are happening in Tibet.

Kleptocracy/Oligarchy - they're part of China and that's what it is.

- Funny, I thought that's what the US was.... no, really, I think Stas has it more accurately.

Personally I'll take modern medicine and development with an absentee and at times abusive landlord, over being forced to work as a serf for a bunch of monks who reserve the right to take anything that they want from you or your family and can order you and arbitrarily punish you for any crime real or imagined.

Except we should remember that Tibet does not really have "modern medicine and development". Certainly, it's better than it was, but medicine there is around WWII era at best and the development varies from barely post-Medieval to maybe mid-20th Century. Which is still impressive given that, what, 50 years ago they might not have had any paved roads.

I also note that both of Lusankya's documents are entirely silent about the years of the Cultural Revolution. What happened there during that time?

[mr friendly guy]

I believe one of his predecessors did expel the Han from the current TAR. Granted, he's not that guy... except he claims to be the reincarnation. Statement like that incline me to believe he's not as benevolent as he is portrayed to be.

Thanks to my google fu, the relevant article is his Five point peace plan addressed to the U.S. Congressional Human Right's Caucus September 21, 1987.

A few things to note,

The massive transfer of Chinese civilians into Tibet in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), threatens the very existence of the Tibetans as a distinct people. In the eastern parts of our country, the Chinese now greatly outnumber Tibetans. In the Amdo province, for example, where I was born, there are, according to the Chinese statistics, 2.5 million Chinese and only 750,000 Tibetans. Even in the so-called Tibet Autonomous Region (i.e., central and western Tibet), Chinese government sources now confirm that Chinese outnumber Tibetans.

Its clear when he talks about Chinese outnumbering Tibetans he is referring to more than the TAR. Of course China disputes his statistics in the TAR. I doubt China disputes that Chinese outnumber Tibetans in provinces which aren't the TAR.

For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past

So he advocates not just kicking Chinese settlers out of the TAR, but outside other regions of China as part of the so called "Greater Tibet". I am sure Richard Gere would have no trouble seeing the ethics behind that.

You should also read up the Dorje Shugden controversy. If you search youtube enough you will find news videos on that.

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.

The issue of Chinese sovereignty over Tibet will get me side tracked, however they could simply argue that they as the successor state of the ROC which in turn is the successor state of the Qing dynasty should inherit its borders (minus the territory they let go, the most notable example being Outer Mongolia / Republic of Mongolia).

As an aside - I find it intriguing that the Chinese have, apparently, encouraged the use of hydro-electric generation (which Tibet, with all those mountains, should have in abundance), solar, wind, and locally generated natural gas rather than importing the external, petroleum dependent energy production and use of the outside world. Of course, Tibet drinks petroleum, too, but they probably generate more of their power from "green" sources than most other nations.

China is heavily reliant on polluting coal. However they have also produced quite a bit on renewables and are in the process of a giant nuclear roll out. They currently are the third largest producer of wind (as of 2009, and it looks like they are likely to become second behind the US or even surpass the US by the end of this year). They are also big producers of solar. I have in the process of getting solar panels installed and was told that most solar panels in my country are produced by China. Look up the city of Rizhao if you are interested in solar.

I also note that both of Lusankya's documents are entirely silent about the years of the Cultural Revolution. What happened there during that time?

It sucked, just like for most of China. Fortunately China's current leaders don't seem to be as crazy as Mao.

[mr friendly guy]

Racist/repressive - we've seen the issues that have been arising from Han "colonialism" and the constant heckling/minor uprisings by Tibetans. It could be handled better by China to say hte least.

Do you mean in how they handle the rioters? How they handle income inequality? How they handle Tibetan dissent, ie similar to how they handle it elsewhere.

While Tibetans comparatively get a lot of the attention in the Western Media, if I were to quote China's top four ethnic minorities by population (which individually outnumber smaller Western Nations one on one), I bet you would never have heard of them, or seen them mention in Western media recently despite China's "racist" attitude and their colonialism. Why is that I wonder? You don't suppose its a bit more complicated than just because one side is racist, do you?

[Lusankya]

Racist/repressive - we've seen the issues that have been arising from Han "colonialism" and the constant heckling/minor uprisings by Tibetans. It could be handled better by China to say hte least.

I really wouldn't say racist at all. If anything, China's big problem is that they don't actually consider race strongly in their thinking at all. As a result, they sometimes tend to think that the same policies they use with Han Chinese can be used with other minority ethnic groups. The flip side of this, of course, is that any minority person who wants to fully immerse themselves in Han culture can do so without any risk of major discrimination. If they have distinct features, then they will find some discrimination, but that's mainly because they have a big "I'm poor and ill-educated" sign stamped on their forehead, with the main difference between them and rural Han Chinese being that rural Han have to open their mouths before people realise that they're probably poor and ill educated. Once they demonstrate wealth and/or education, that vanishes pretty quickly. It's not that much different from being a foreigner and finding that the prices in the fake market are much more expensive for you than they are for the locals. It's not that they hate foreigners - it's just that you might as well be running around shouting that you have lots of money and don't know the price of stuff.

Not that you don't get racists in China, but largely it is a different (and less harmful in my opinion) form than in the west.

I also note that both of Lusankya's documents are entirely silent about the years of the Cultural Revolution. What happened there during that time?

Tibet was actually less affected by the Cultural Revolution than other parts of China, due to its remoteness，however the event obviously did not help the development of the region. The CCP's general attitude towards the Cultural Revolution is "admit it was a mistake, blame it on Mao Zedong and make sure all your leaders are nerdy engineers with no people skills to ensure that it never happens again".

While Tibetans comparatively get a lot of the attention in the Western Media, if I were to quote China's top four ethnic minorities by population (which individually outnumber smaller Western Nations one on one), I bet you would never have heard of them, or seen them mention in Western media recently despite China's "racist" attitude and their colonialism. Why is that I wonder? You don't suppose its a bit more complicated than just because one side is racist, do you?

There's a chance that he would have heard of the Manchurians (China's second largest ethnic group), what with them ruling China for several hundred years and all. Of the 8 minority ethnic groups more numerous than the Tibetans, I'd be willing to believe him if he could name three of them off the top of his head - Manchurians, Uyghurs and Monglians. Of the 46 ethnic groups less numerous than the Tibetans, I would be very surprised if he could name any unless he remembered that since there's nothing physically stopping people from walking over borders, China has some minorities who are part of the dominant ethnic groups of neighboring countries.

[mr friendly guy]

There's a chance that he would have heard of the Manchurians (China's second largest ethnic group), what with them ruling China for several hundred years and all. Of the 8 minority ethnic groups more numerous than the Tibetans, I'd be willing to believe him if he could name three of them off the top of his head - Manchurians, Uyghurs and Monglians. Of the 46 ethnic groups less numerous than the Tibetans, I would be very surprised if he could name any unless he remembered that since there's nothing physically stopping people from walking over borders, China has some minorities who are part of the dominant ethnic groups of neighboring countries.

Well the Manchu are China's second largest ethnic minority group. The second largest ethnic group and hence largest ethnic minority group is the Zhuang. Though my main point is, we don't hear stories of oppression with the Zhuang, Manchu (despite the fact that Han Chinese overthrew Manchu rule to end the Qing dynasty), Hui or the Miao / Hmong despite China's "racist" policies, ergo the situation in China's far provinces is more complicated than just one side is racist.

Now to be honest off the top of my head, if I was to name ethnic groups less numerous than Tibetans, the obvious ones for my limited knowledge would be Russians, Bai (because they appear in Chinese martial arts fiction, ie they ruled the kingdom of Dali), Dong (because I have met a few at tourist sites), Yao (same reason), Xibe (from which the name Siberia allegedly originates from, hence why I remember it) and Koreans (from the waves of immigration in the 19 th century). Any more and I will have to get my travel books off my shelf to look.

[Lusankya]

Well the Manchu are China's second largest ethnic minority group.

Um... yeah. That's what I meant to write.

[Broomstick]

Though my main point is, we don't hear stories of oppression with the Zhuang, Manchu (despite the fact that Han Chinese overthrew Manchu rule to end the Qing dynasty), Hui or the Miao / Hmong despite China's "racist" policies, ergo the situation in China's far provinces is more complicated than just one side is racist.

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.

[Broomstick]

Oh, one more thing - how do we reconcile China's claim that that TAR is 90% or more ethnic Tibetan, and Dalai Lama's claim that the ethnic Tibetans are outnumbered by the Chinese within that region? Obviously, both can't be correct (though both could be wrong...)

I also find it notable that China does mention the other, smaller ethinicities within Tibet while the Dali Lama never does. Clearly, Old Tibet was run for the benefit of a Tibetan elite who didn't give a shit about the lower class Tibetans, much less anyone else, but Mr. 14th is supposed to be enlightened or something, shouldn't he be doing better than his predecessors? (Or maybe not, if you adhere to the Tibetan view he and his predecessors are the same entity)

[Lusankya]

When the Dalai Lama uses the word Tibet, he likes to use it to mean "Greater Tibet", AKA "Pretty much the entire Tibetan Plateau". When China uses the word "Tibet", they use it to mean the Tibetan Autonomous Region. The difference in what they refer to with the word "Tibet" (where the Dalai Lama claims not only the TAR, but also the entirety of Qinghai, as well as large swathes of Yunnan, Sichuan and Gansu provinces and parts of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, an area which makes up about 25% of China's territory) accounts for the difference in its entirety.

Wikipedia has a nice map showing the difference.

China doesn't dispute that Tibetans make up a minority in "Greater Tibet". What they dispute is the idea that any of the regions the area known as "Greater Tibet" have been administrated from Lhasa since the Yuan Dynasty (13th Century) or that the area has ever been united as an independent nation. In fact, as far as China is concerned, the illusion of "Greater Tibet" is a fiction created by separatists and imperialists to destroy the sovereignty and territorial unity of China. The story is, England worked with Tibetan separatists early in the 20th century to attempt to force the Chinese government at the time to give the Tibetans independence. Why would England care about the plight of Tibetans, you ask? Well:

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.