| Author |
Message |
yin/yang
Talker
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 81
|
 Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 11:25 AM |
 
|
| Post subject: What I know about t¡bet |
What I know about t¡bet
t¡bet was mentioned in several posts in other threads on this forum. It appears some members here feel strongly about the issue. Knowing this would be another topic where views among the members, especially between the Chinese and foreigners, differ greatly, I am thinking it might merit a separate thread where people can express their opinions about issue and share what they know about t¡bet. For this potentially controversial issue, I hope we can have an intellectual and rational discussion with our open minds. So we all can learn something.
I am no expert on this issue myself. I am making my living by doing scientific research. But I have long been interested in the history of Chinese expansion at its western frontiers and its assimilation of minority people throughout the history. After the t¡betan issue gained prominence at world stage following da1a¡ 1ama’s winning of the Nobel Prize in 1989, I have read a few books on the issue (both from China and abroad), surfed the internet for the related news and talked with people holding the opposing views. I visited t¡bet once and now am planning to make another trip later this year. I am saying this just to let people know I have some exposure to the issue and please don’t assume that all my knowledge regarding the issue are from the government “crap”.
For my fellow Chinese here, if you haven’t gone out of the textbooks we had at schools, what I am going to say might sound quite different. It’s not my intention to make our country look bad in front of foreigners. While I will try to be as objective and impartial as possible, I will defend China’s points whenever they are defensible.
For the friends from outside of China, I hope you have an open mind too. People from outside China generally have the training of critical thinking and have resources available to help them make the judgment. But to me, t¡betan issue is a special issue in that, t¡bet is a relatively isolated place and it’s not easily accessible to most people. There are two opposing voices from Beijing and Dharamsala. Understandably, if no other places to get information and people have to choose between the two, they tend to believe in the latter. But in term of propaganda and manipulation of public opinions, Dharamsala isn’t much better. I mean they are doing a better PR work. Though it appears there are many independent resources in the internet, the material on their websites are mostly from the t¡betan government in exile. For instance, a few days ago, Andreas quoted some data on t¡bet from a website. That matches the data from the official website from Dharamsala, though the numbers from the Chinese government would differ greatly (even after taking the consideration of the concept of t¡bet itself is different from two bases).
Unless this thread gets too ugly to be thrown into the Pit, I will try to post something about “what I know about t¡bet” whenever I can squeeze some time to write. In the meantime, everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion and I am looking forward to your contributions too.
Since it’s not going to be an academic paper, I am not going to name the sources I am going to quote from. But I am obliged to credit Mr. Wang Lixiong whose works I read extensively. Mr. Wang is a dissident writer who spent years in t¡bet and traversed almost every parts of t¡bet. He was once jailed for a short time by the government while doing investigative research. Unfortunately, Not much of his works are available in English yet. |
|
|
|
|
knockknock_ca
PopStar
Joined: Nov 27, 2003
Posts: 1066
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 11:39 AM |
|
|
Bravo! Thanks yin/yang for starting this thread. And longing to waiting for more information from you. |
|
|
|
|
|
MaomingMaster
Board Legend
Joined: Feb 03, 2004
Posts: 11059
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 12:25 PM |
|
|
I wonder how long this thread will last......... |
|
|
|
|
Nick-la
Wonder Wit
Joined: July 19, 2003
Posts: 3675
Location: Wasted on this site
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 01:37 PM |
|
|
OK, let's see.
China imprisoned Monks. Monks. They provided no health or education service. They stoppd the people learning anything indigenous, and forced them to learn Mandarin.
An estimated 1.5 Million t¡betans have died due to Chinese 'occupation' of t¡bet since 1959.
An estimated 1.5 Million t¡betans have died due to Chinese 'occupation' of t¡bet since 1959.
98% of 6000 (SIX THOUSAND) monasteries were destroyed.
China sold and destroyed any Buddhist artefacts or pieces of history/culture.
Chinese people get better pay and more priveleges in t¡bet, and the government does nothing abou it even now.
So they have f*cked up the place, and still offer no support to those who have been made to be at a disadvantage.
I managed to get a quote for this one:
"In 1995 the Chinese government kidnapped the six-year-old Gendun Chökyi Nyima and his parents, shortly after he had been recognized by the da1a¡ 1ama as the latest reincarnation of t¡bet's second most important spiritual leader, the Panchen 1ama. In a resolution of July, 1995, the European Parliament called on China to release the family immediately. This family, like many other groups and individuals who have been detained without trial, remains unaccounted for"
Typical Nazi oops I mean Chinese government. |
_________________
I'm surrounded by idiots. |
|
|
|
|
quasi
FooJay
Joined: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1776
Location: shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 03:57 PM |
|
|
NO YOU CAN'T IN t¡bet.. And you would know how????? |
|
|
 |
|
Teddi
LoopKicker
Joined: July 25, 2003
Posts: 821
Location: shanghai
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 05:57 PM |
|
|
t¡bet always sounds mystic and attractive to me. It is like a retreat away from the hustle and bustle of the world. Their culture, religion and special customs are so fantastic that i'm sure i will be deeply intoxicated provided go there once.
t¡bet is sacred and awesome. |
_________________
When you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling. Live your life so that when you die, you are the one who is smiling and everyone around you is crying. |
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3906
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 06:09 PM |
|
|
History in Brief, part one:
The t¡betan state rose to prominence around the sixth or seventh century, at a time when powerful states were forming throughout Eurasia – in China, Japan, Korea, northern India, the Middle East and Europe. Many of these states came together after Turkish-speaking tribes captured the Silk Road city of Samarkland and unified the central Asian trade routes, in effect linking the European and Asian continents and encouraging a thriving trade. t¡bet was an important part of this and t¡betan goods were prized throughout Eurasia – for example Yak tails, which the Chinese sewed into their hats and Indian used as fly-swats (chowries). Musk perfume was in high demand, as were the gold and silver ornaments so prized by wealthy merchants and rulers in the Chinese capital.
However, t¡bet is much older. t¡betans descended from the Qiang, a proto-t¡betan group of nomadic shepherds who first appeared in western China sometime before 1000BC. This group were once though to be Jews and one of the ten lost tribes. From the third to the sixth centuries BC the Qiang controlled large parts of northern China, but although there was probably some interaction between the Qiang and Chinese groups, the Chinese are known to have considered the Qiang to be from a different and barbarian culture and race. The Qiang who wandered into t¡bet intermixed with other groups in the area, including Persian and Indian groups.
By the fifth or sixth century AD t¡bet had established many walled cities and castles. In 570 the warrior king Namri Songtsen united the traders, peasants, craftsmen, etc into a military dominion bordering China in the south and central Asia in the west. The soldiers wore t¡betan chain mail so fine that their enemies complained that bows and even swords couldn’t pierce it. This armour was copied in form from the Persians, but the workmanship was unequalled to this day. It covered their entire bodies except for two eye slots, and they even armoured their horses in similar fashion.
Namri Songtsen’s son, Songtsen Gampo, was t¡bet’s greatest king and is even today revered and treated like a holy hero by t¡betans everywhere. In 635 he joined the newly-established Tang Dynasty in attacking and defeating the Tuyuhun Mongols, making t¡bet the supreme power in the region, known today in China as Qinghai.
He then demanded the Chinese emperor present him with a princess bride. The emperor refused and in retaliation Gampo’s forces in 638 raided the city known today as Songpan in Sichuan. The t¡betans drove the Chinese out, although a few months later the Chinese returned the favour, which resulted in a truce. The Chinese emperor then presented Gampo with his princess bride (he had many brides however, and married this one for political reasons). He was a great leader who was responsible for the crafting of a new language and writing system, the creation of a new legal system and constitution, and the introduction of Buddhism (leaders of other empires such as Korea and Japan also introduced Buddhism at about this time).
In 649 Gampo died, but his successor in 670 routed the Tang from what is now Xinjiang, thus controlling all the important trade routes between Europe and Asia. Within 50 years, the t¡betan state extended over a larger area than even the Tang, China’s strongest and most militaristic dynasty, had ruled. It’s armies were more than a match for those of the Tang (or anyone else), and in 755 t¡betan forces penetrated deep into China, conquering much of Sichuan. The t¡betan king (Trisong Detsen) demanded the Chinese pay tribute of 50,000 rolls of silk (a huge sum) per year as tribute. When the payment was late 763, the t¡betans attacked and captured the Tang capital at Changan (near Xi’an), putting on the throne of China a t¡betan (the brother of the former t¡betan kings’ wife). The Chinese drove them out again shortly thereafter, but t¡betan troops remained in the countryside near the city for several years and t¡betan forces dominated most of western China for almost the next half century.
By 797 t¡bet controlled much of central Asia, large parts of China and Burma, all of Nepal, Bhutan, Sikkim, as well as most of present-day Bangladesh, Pakistan, and much of northern India including West Bengal. The Bay of Bengal was known at the time as the t¡betan Sea.
Well, Yin/Yang, want part two? Or is this too much information already?  |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos |
|
|
|
|
Nick-la
Wonder Wit
Joined: July 19, 2003
Posts: 3675
Location: Wasted on this site
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 10:15 PM |
|
|
"NO YOU CAN'T IN t¡bet.. And you would know how?????"
Oh Quasi, you intelligent, well-educated and insightful person, would you care to make an actual point dear? |
_________________
I'm surrounded by idiots.
Last edited by Nick-la on May 14, 2004 - 11:08 PM; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
quasi
FooJay
Joined: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1776
Location: shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 10:57 PM |
|
|
just copy and paste, shall i do it again in the PIT for ur answer? |
|
|
|
|
|
Nick-la
Wonder Wit
Joined: July 19, 2003
Posts: 3675
Location: Wasted on this site
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 11:05 PM |
|
|
Oop bugger I forgot I was keeping it civil.... |
_________________
I'm surrounded by idiots. |
|
|
|
|
quasi
FooJay
Joined: Aug 23, 2003
Posts: 1776
Location: shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
May 14, 2004 - 11:15 PM |
|
|
oh ya bummer, just tit for tat. |
|
|
|
|
|
yin/yang
Talker
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 81
|
| Posted:
May 15, 2004 - 08:21 AM |
|
|
Edgewood, the Central Asia was a battle ground through much of the history. The powers fought for the territory and dominance. Long before the t¡betans rose to power, Han dynasty (from 206 BC to about 220 AD) conquered much of the central Asia, driving the Xiongnu (tarta?) westward which in turn led to the demise of the Roman Empire, though that's hardly relevant to the topic here. But even at the times when China was militarily strong and t¡bet weak, The Han Chinese never really got inside the t¡betan heartland before 1950s, largely due to the geographic reasons.
Yes, t¡bet emerged as a unified state and a mighty power in the region during that time under Songtsen Gampo (Songzanganbu) as Edgewood mentioned. t¡bet's territory expansion lasted for the next three centuries starting from him. At its peak time, it controlled the Corridor region in today's Xinjiang and Gansu area in the north. Eastward, it once occupied large chunk of the Sichuan and Yunan provinces. But when Tang dynasty (618-907AD) was at its peak time, it controlled much of the western frontier regions after defeating Turks (Tujue) and setting up protectorates, garrisons and later regular prefectures. t¡betan’s control of the silk road mentioned by Edgewood didn’t happen until later 9th century when the Tang declined significantly. Tang lost central Asia region not because it was defeated by the t¡betans but by Persians. A Chinese army led by a Korean general slaughtered Kashiga (Ka shi, at the Chinese and Afghan border) after tricking the enemy to surrender. The survivors went to Da Shi (nowadays Iran) and persuaded them to help to revenge. The Han Chinese army, caught by surprise, suffered the decisive defeat and virtually disappeared from much of the region for the next millennium and beyond. I will come back at this when it’s possible.
Seeing the Tang Emperor married one princess to the Tuguhun head (the Emperor Li Shimin himself was a mix between the Han Chinese and Tujue (Turkjs, It's a fad then for the upper class families to marry those central Asian women for their light skins), Songtsen Gampo demanded the same. I don't want to sound self-important as a Chinese here since you guys had enough of that. But the truth is that even though those nomadic people might be militarily strong, in term of the creation of the civilization, they are no comparison with those from agricultural area. Generally speaking, Nomads caused more damage to a civilization than help to create one. The feeling of marrying a princess from the Tang court might be similar to that of a guy who came from rural area in China married a Shanghai girl nowadays. (I know you Shanghai girls are smiling now).
Tang dynasty was a great power too if not greater, at least under Li Shimin's reign. The emperor didn't pay too much attention to the demand. Furious, Songtsen Gampo first went to defeat Tuguhun and then entered the Tang territory. He sent a letter to the Tang emperor, saying if you don't marry a princess to me, I will lead an army of 50,000 to take over your country, kill you and snatch away a princess. (what a man!).
Strong as Tang was, the emperor of course didn't yield to the threat. But after a few battles where each side had some wins and losses, the emperor began to realize he needed to take this guy more seriously than he did before and could not just ignore him. On the other hand, Songtsen Gampo, after a few battles, knew that the Tang wasn't like what he met in other places. He moderated his attitude, withdrew his troops and sent an envoy with gifts to propose the marriage, the emperor granted the request without much hesitation this time, agreed to marry the princess Wen Cheng to Songtsen Gampo. In the meantime, the emperor married a royal relative to the envoy himself. So we can see how much the emperor wanted to make peace with t¡bet, likely under the military pressure of Songtsen Gampo.
Even without Edgewood mentioning this, I am planning to start with Songtsen Gampo and his wedding with the princess Wen Cheng, because ordinary Chinese people might not know much about t¡bet but they know Princess Wen Cheng. The current Chinese government propaganda machine makes use of this wedding to their advantage, describing the relation between t¡bet and China as "uncle and nephew" relationship, implying China began to owe t¡bet since that time. The Chinese history textbooks for middle schools regarding t¡bet spent more time talking about the princess Wen Cheng and her contributions to the development of t¡bet than any other t¡betan figures, giving the impression that before her, t¡bet was in general uncivilized and barbarian place. Though it's true that the Princess Wen Cheng played an important role in spreading the Buddhism to t¡bet, along with Songtsen Gampo's Nepalese wife. It is laughable and serves no real purpose to exaggerate the role played by the marriage. It’s also far from truth to suggest that t¡betan civilization, including its medicine, crafts, culinary arts and even the vegetable seeds were largely due to, or brought in by, the princess Wen Cheng.
After Songtsen Gampo married princess Wen Cheng in 639AD, the Sino-t¡betan border was relatively quiet for the next 10 years. Then the princess, as a window, stayed there for another 29 years until her death. She never had a chance to come back after she had left China. While she was still alive, she began to see more conflicts. Edgewood’s post gave the impression that it’s always the t¡betans who were victorious. But let me list some main warfare in the following 1.5 centuries after the death of the princess.
673, the tang emperor, ordered an expedition army of 100,000 men strong to t¡bet led by general Xu Pinggui who was defeated by t¡betan general Qinling (pin yin)
692, t¡betans invaded and was decisively defeated by general Wang Xiaozhi.
696, t¡betan army invaded Liang Zhou and the Tang army was defeated.
702, t¡betans invaded and Tang army was defeated in all the four battles.
727, t¡betans invaded and was defeated by Wang Junhuan.
731, Xiao Song defeated t¡betans at Qi Lian
763, t¡betan invaded Chang An (capital). Guo Ziyi was defeated and fled.
786, t¡betan invaded and captured Jian Zhou and several other towns.
789, General Wei Gao won a big victory over t¡betan army and in 791, he won several other battles again and captured t¡betan general Zan Re (pin yin).
In the year of 763 when the capital was captured, Edgewood mentioned that t¡betans were “putting on the throne of China a t¡betan (the brother of the former t¡betan kings’ wife)”. I think it’s misleading. The emperor was Li Yu. Though it’s true that he was the brother of the former t¡betan king’s wife, this wife was another Chinese princess Jin Cheng, though the princess Jin Cheng was less known than the princess Wen Cheng. She was only 14 when she married the t¡betan king Zan Pu (pin yin) in the year 708. The current king Chi Song De was born into the princess Jin Cheng and he was actually half Chinese. He put his uncle (jiujiu), a Chinese from the royal family, not a t¡betan, on the throne.
This is just another example that each side in this debate sometimes tries to twist the fact to make them look or feel good. I am not saying you are doing this, Edgewood, I know you got your information from somewhere. Another point I want to make is, if the people felt so glorified by t¡betans’ military victory over China, should Chinese 200 years from now feel proud about PLA’’s “invasion” of t¡bet in 1950s? China, throughout the history, had its highs and lows. When it was strong in Han dynasty, its territory covered much of the today’s Uzberkistan, Tajikstan and other central areas. One general, Ban Gu, declared: for those you dare to offend the Great Han empire, no matter how far you go, I will pursue and kill you (犯我强汉者, 虽远必诛). When it’s weak, its territory is smaller than a couple of million square kilometers. China, like t¡bet, has glorious civilization and also the humiliating past. If anyone got the pleasure by hearing chinese humiliating past, I can tell you more. For example, in Northern Song Dynasty (960-1126), the emperor, actually the emperors, both the father and the son were captured by the invading Jin (the ancestors of Manchu). And the humiliation they received was very similar to that of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison. ). And more recently, in French Concession, the sign read, no access to the Chinese and dogs (if this is just something made up, I would like to know. I know it’s in my primary school textbook, though I am aware that I have to take everything the government told us with a grain of salt). |
|
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3906
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
May 15, 2004 - 11:35 AM |
|
|
yin/yang, mostly you are right, a few minor points I disagree but certainly overall you are right on the money.
Curiously, I had almost exactly this same discussion with my best friend last night - was it you? Are you playing with me bro?
I'll carry on with part two later, busy now. I just wanted to say what a pleasure it is to be having a reasonable, reasoned discussion with one of the natives - thanks for that.
To answer your other question:
China's 'No Dogs or Chinese' Sign
Debunking Another Historical Fable
For many years it has endured as a particularly striking example of the demeaning, racist way that Chinese were treated in their own country during the early decades of this century. At a time when Europeans, and especially the British, dominated much of China, a sign at the entrance to the Huangpu Park in Shanghai supposedly announced: "No Dogs or Chinese Allowed."
For decades this story has been widely repeated. It is cited in numerous books, including the writings of China's first republican president, Sun Yat-Sen. Harvard University historian John K. Fairbank refers in his 1986 study, The Great Chinese Revolution (p. 147) to the "oft-mentioned (but never photographed?) sign at the Public Garden on the Shanghai bund (waterfront), 'No Dogs or Chinese Allowed'." Oddly, it seems that no one has ever reported actually seeing the infamous sign, and the story's precise origin has always been obscure.
Last year a Chinese journalist set off a furor when he announced that his research indicated that the sign never existed. To impress the Chinese masses with the wickedness of European imperialists, he reported, the park sign story was popularized as official history during the 1950s in Shanghai's "Museum for History and Reconstruction."
As the German monthly Nation und Europa (Sept. 1994) reports, this bit of revisionist debunking has touched off heated discussion in China about the social-pedagogical utility of history. The official Guangming daily paper, for example, told readers that any expression of doubt about the existence of the Shanghai park sign will retard the proper education of the people.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v15/v15n5p31_Weber.html |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos
Last edited by Edgewood on May 15, 2004 - 01:11 PM; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
xixi
Reacher
Joined: Jan 04, 2004
Posts: 312
|
| Posted:
May 15, 2004 - 12:33 PM |
|
|
Good education for me. By the way, Xiongnu is not Tartar. They might have connections, though.
Check this,
http://en.{WeeKeePeeDeeYa DOT org}/wiki/Xiongnu |
|
|
|
|
|
littlefox
Fire-eater
Joined: Nov 23, 2003
Posts: 2773
|
| Posted:
May 15, 2004 - 09:55 PM |
|
|
China's 'No Dogs or Chinese' Sign is not a fabricated lie, well but I know you like fable a lot, don't you Edgewoof?
that article written by that Chinese was proved to be based on foundless investigations.
as we know the Bund Park (also known as Huangpu Park) is the first official park in Shanghai. The concession bureau set up policemen and guard to prevent Chinese getting into the park at the very beginning. In 1878, two local newspaper, Jinyuan Paper and Shen Newspaper published articles to prοtest this policy. and R·T·Tharburn, the secretary general of the Concession Bureau, replied as, " I would like to explain that the Concession bureau doesn't agree that Chinese have the rights to enter the public park." The reply was published in the bureau's annual newspaper in 1881. In 1886, Song Yaoru, Song Qingling's father protested in front of the park along with several Chinese priests. Shen Newspaper keeps publishing articles in 1881, 1885, 1888, 1889 and 1909 to express the public's dissatisfaction. in 1907, a scholar named Li Weiq wrote in his book 《上海乡土志》(don't know how to translate this, probably Shanghai Records).
Some foreign media reported this at that time too, including, British Weekly , which published this in one of its 1925 editions. China Weekly in 1929, The Atlantic Monthly in 1930. oooooooo, I forgot, even a Japanese media covered it, I think it's called Asahi News something 朝日新闻.
and fortunately, we still got several witnesses alive right now, one of them is Jiang Hao, staff of Shanghai Literature and History Institute, , 41 Sinan Lu, 6473 5427. Pay him a visit, would you edgewoof? 
The only sad thing about you is you believe every negative reports regarding China. Hopeless... |
|
|
|
|
|
yin/yang
Talker
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 81
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 08:04 AM |
|
|
Thanks again, Edgewood. Pleasure is mine too to be able to share things here. But I know we would have differences.
Where did you have that exchange with your friend? Hope someday I can join you guys.
Thank you very much for answering my question and looking forward to your part 2.
Xixi, thanks for the link.
Littlefox, that is a good one. I mean I like the way you presented things this time, Though I am still not very clear that the prοtests you mentioned were about the policy not to let Chinese in or it’s about the “sign” in question. Similar, but they are not exactly the same. |
|
|
|
|
|
yin/yang
Talker
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 81
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 09:55 AM |
|
|
It appears for t¡betan issues, there are always two opposing views, not much of the middle ground. For example, China claims it has the sovereignty over t¡bet from the 13th century and ever since. The other side would say China invaded t¡bet in 1950s and colonized it as an occupying force. Most foreigners believe the latter while for most Chinese, even they might not agree with the government on other things, they tend to go with the government on this issue. But the reality might not be always that clear as black and white. And for the same historical fact, people have different understandings and interpretations.
t¡betans are reluctant to admit that it was conquered by Mongols. And indeed there was virtually no military actions involved since by this time t¡bet was split into many small tribes and very weak. They could not put up a defense and surrendered to Prince Goden, the grandson of Genghis Khan one by one when his expedition army came to t¡betan area in 1240. But Mongols embraced t¡betan Buddhism and Kublai Khan, the successor to Goden, later adopted it as the state religion. The current t¡betan exile government tries hard to portray the relation between t¡betans and Mongols as priest-patron, but it’s hard to refuse to admit that t¡bet wasn’t part of the Mongol Empire.
But I don’t know how much that would help China’s claim. China was conquered by Mongols too and Han Chinese social status was even lower than that of Titetans in Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368, Yuan Dynasty categorized people in 4 groups with Mongols being the highest, then Se Mu (t¡betans were under this category), then Han Chinese, then South People (nan ren)). It doesn’t sound very convincing to claim China began to rule t¡bet since the 13th century unless you can convince the world that Mongolians equal Chinese (or part of the Chinese). [There were two Mongolian provinces under Qing dynasty (1644-1911). The Outer Mongolia declared independence soon after the fall of the Qing (1921) but didn’t set up a government until 1924 with the help of the Soviet Union].
China’s basis for the claim is that the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644) replaced the Yuan and inherited the right to rule t¡bet. But the fact is the contact between Ming and t¡bet was scarce. The peasant-turned first emperor of Ming dynasty probably felt pretty good already to be able to rule China’s heartland. He even gave a list of the countries that his descendents should never make expeditions to. Most the presentable parts of the Great Wall we see today were built up during the Ming dynasty. It’s hard to imagine a dynasty that didn’t want to do much beyond the Wall had much interests in the far away and very isolated t¡bet. The Chinese government often cites two things for their claim. First, after Ming defeated Yuan, many t¡betan officials and lamas handed in the old official seals (which were the symbol of the official position and the power) granted by Yuan court and changed to the new ones bearing the Ming dynasty symbols. Second, there were numerous lamas and officials, coming to Beijing to pay tribute and Ming court granted official titles along with gifts to them. While both are the valid arguments but I don’t know how much you can extract from them to support the sovereignty claim if no substantial contact between the two sides. (For the tribute from t¡bet, in terms of money value, it’s usually not much. The Ming emperors interpreted that those who were paying the tributes were pledging allegiance to them. What they needed most wasn’t the material gains but the symbolic implications. While they collected heavy taxes on the traditional Han Chinese areas, for the tributes from other areas, their policy was to grant back gifts that’s usually 3 times in value. This eventually became a financial burden for the court and later they had to limit the tributes from t¡betan areas, such as you must reach certain level to be able to pay the tributes and even for those qualified, you could only do it every three years etc. So for t¡betans, it’s a good business deal. Especially the gifts were usually something they valued very much, such as tea, silk, cotton and gold. Sometimes they used the gold granted by the court to buy more stuff to take back. For lamas, they changed to gold foils, dyes and sacrificial vessels for their monasteries. For laymen, they bought more teas, medicines and chinaware. It became a good business deal for them).
There were more interactions between t¡bet and Qing dynasty and the interactions were more substantial too. Will come to this later. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3906
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 02:09 PM |
|
|
Continued from where I left off, this is Part Two
In 797 Trisong Detsen died (maybe poisoned by his wife). His son succeeded him, but there were major objections from the nobility, who were largely of the Bon religion. The country thus became split along religious and political lines, resulting in great internal weakness for the country. This occurred at a time when t¡betan dominion had expanded across the Pamir mountains into the what is now Tadzhikistan, and had reached the borders of Persia. This t¡betan expansion worried Arab strategists. In 801 the Arab leader Harun ar-Rashid (the Caliph in ‘Tales of the Thousand and One Nights’) joined forces with China against t¡bet.
For the next few decades things went badly for t¡bet and in 838 members of the Bon nobility succeeded in killing the king. The king’s brother, who had planned the attack, ascended the throne and began persecuting the Buddhists, almost succeeding in destroying Buddhism in central t¡bet. Buddhism was saved when a monk, in 842, shot an arrow into the new king, thus ending the first t¡betan dynasty. This at the same time both destroyed the state that had made t¡bet great, and saved the religion that had given the country much of it’s unique culture. t¡bet was never again to be a superpower, but was able to continue to develop Buddhism.
By 866 t¡bet had disintegrated into a number of smaller principalities and even the central Government virtually ceased to exist. By the tenth century few traces of the vast t¡betan dominion remained, and it’s former military and economic might had been replaced by new central Asian dynasties. This was in many ways a similar fate to that of other powerful nations of the period. For example, the 843 Treaty of Verdun split Charlemagne’s dominion among his grandsons, and in the following century the Viking invasions made things worse. Arab invasion followed by revolutionary internal change tore apart the Byzantine dominion. The Tang dynasty collapsed and for the next several hundred years China was also split into several competing states.
The monastic system developed in the wake of this collapse and Buddhism came to influence social, cultural, and political life to an extent unparalleled anywhere else in Asia. By the thirteenth century, t¡bet had developed a decentralised political system based around the monasteries, very different from, say, China’s nonreligious central bureaucratic system.
Yin/Yang, you are correct when you say t¡bet was conquered by The Mongols, as was China. This is the basis of the claim the CPC uses to justify it’s continued occupation of the country – that both sides became one due to the fact that both were conquered. However, this logic is shaky. The Mongols also conquered most of central Asia, the Middle East and even eastern Europe. If the Mongol conquests made t¡bet and China part of the same country, then it could be argued that eastern Europe and Korea belong to China. Yet China recognises Mongolia as a separate country! Using the test of past conquest and rule by another nation, this would make Taiwan part of Japan, because Japan occupied Taiwan for more than 50 years, in the process radically altering Taiwan’s political, social, and economic structure (politically, Taiwan has more in common today with Japan than China).
The t¡betan-Mongol relationship was more complex than that of conquered and conqueror. Both groups had a long association, stemming in part from their mutual differences from the Chinese. The relationship between the Mongols and t¡betans was cemented by Phags-pa the nephew and heir of Kunga Gyaltsen, a monk appointed by the Mongols supreme ruler of t¡bet. When the great Mongol leader and conqueror of China, Khubilai Khan became supreme Khan in 1260, he put Phags-pa in charge of all Buddhist clergy in the empire and made him state preceptor (guoshi). Khubilai used Phags-pa to restrain Chinese cultural influences on his court. Phags-pa also invented a new script, adapted from the t¡betan alphabet, for the writing of both Mongolian and Chinese and for a short time the t¡betan writing system was thus the official language of the entire realm, including China. Khubiliai went so far as to send the last boy emperor of the Song dynasty to the Sakya temple to be trained as a monk, but was no more successful at persuading the people that the emperor was a monk, than the communists have been at trying to persuade people that t¡betans are Chinese. Therefore, four years after his ordination in 1296, the emperor was ordered to commit suicide.
No one considered t¡bet a part of China – the Mongols considered t¡bet an autonomous region and gave local elites tremendous latitude. In 1358 the Thel monastery rallied rival monastries to the cause and rebelled against the Mongols. t¡bet again became a completely separate country, with the main legacy of Mongol rule being a religious central Government. Although the Ming Government (established in 1358) labelled trade with t¡bet as ‘tribute’, thus making t¡bet a ‘tributary state’, it’s worth pointing out the later Qing also referred to the Vatican in the same way. The Ming Government referred to all foreign trade as ‘tribute’ because it bolstered the emperor’s prestige. Far from being subjects, the t¡betans again extended t¡betan power into Kham, Ando, Nepal, Burma and Bangladesh. Some of the massive hilltop fortresses they built at this time still exist (in the early twentieth century the British considered the fort at Gyangtze to be the strongest in central Asia).
Part Three follows... |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos
Last edited by Edgewood on May 16, 2004 - 03:42 PM; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3906
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 03:30 PM |
|
|
| littlefox wrote: |
| The concession bureau set up policemen and guard to prevent Chinese getting into the park at the very beginning. In 1878, two local newspaper, Jinyuan Paper and Shen Newspaper published articles to prοtest this policy. and R·T·Tharburn, the secretary general of the Concession Bureau, replied as, " I would like to explain that the Concession bureau doesn't agree that Chinese have the rights to enter the public park." The reply was published in the bureau's annual newspaper in 1881. In 1886, Song Yaoru, Song Qingling's father protested in front of the park along with several Chinese priests. Shen Newspaper keeps publishing articles in 1881, 1885, 1888, 1889 and 1909 to express the public's dissatisfaction. |
That's quite likely true littlfox, but it still doesn't mean the sign existed. Given that there is no actual proof, like a photo for example, there is a good possibility it didn't exist.
And if it did? Also very unfair to the dogs I think, not only the Chinese. After all, dogs are supposed to be mans best friend. |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos |
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
Joined: Jan 28, 2004
Posts: 3906
Location: Colonial Shanghai
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 05:25 PM |
|
|
Part Three of the True History of t¡bet…
Gedun Truppa, the king who built the Tashilunpo Monastery, wisely instituted the idea that his successor should be a reincarnated 1ama. Of course, the identity of the new 1ama would not be obvious, and the Buddhist authorities would need to be entrusted with finding him and acting as his regent. This ensured the leaders were kept from being pitted against secular families and made the monasteries appear to be an oasis of stability. After the death of Gedun Truppa, his spirit passed to the second da1a¡ 1ama (the title was awarded posthumously), Gedun Gyatso, and then on to Sonam Gyatso. By this time, however, the fortunes of the school had begun to decline and in 1578 Sonam Gyatso accepted the invitation of the Mongol leader Altan Khan to visit Mongolia and instruct him in t¡betan Lamaism (as Sakyapa had instructed Khubilai Khan). It was Altan Khan who created the position of da1a¡ 1ama, for Sonam Gyatso. Sonam respectfully claimed his two predecessors had also been da1a¡ 1ama’s and he became the third. Sonam spent the rest of his life in Kham, Amdo and Mongolia, and prophesised that “within eighty years the descendants of the Khan would become the rulers of all Mongolia and China”. Buddhist monasteries soon covered Mongolia and the Fourth da1a¡ 1ama was Altan Khan’s great-grandson.
The Fourth da1a¡ 1ama gave the title of Panchen 1ama (‘Great Scholar’) to the abbot of the Tashilunpo monastery, meaning that the two main regions of central t¡bet each had an influential political and religious leader. This leads to an interesting relationship. The da1a¡ 1ama is the more important of the two, but in formal Buddhist terms, the da1a¡ 1ama gave the Panchen 1ama a position higher than his own, because the while the da1a¡ 1ama is the reincarnation of Buddha’s body, the Panchen 1ama is the reincarnation of Buddha’s mind. Because the da1a¡ 1ama is now and always has been the leader of t¡bet, it’s a technicality only, but one worth noting, given recent developments – more about that later.
The important da1a¡ 1ama was the fifth one, known as the Great Fifth. His relationship with the Mongols was close and important. He made Lhasa the new capital of t¡bet in 1642 and laid the foundations for the pοta⌊a Palace on the same hill as Songtsen Gampo’s seventh century palace, a site equidistant from the monasteries at Sera and Drepung. The pοta⌊a is still the official residence of the da1a¡ 1ama (not the Norbulingka, or Summer Palace on the city’s outskirts). It is the worlds largest wooden skyscraper and is one of the most amazing buildings in the world. The name pοta⌊a was taken from that of a rock in southern India said to be the abode of the God of Mercy, who is incarnate in the da1a¡ 1ama. It measures 440 feet high by 900 feet in length, but seems much larger because it is built on top of a mountain. It contains 35 chapels, several meeting halls, meditation chambers, and mausoleums. In the basement are prisons and torture chambers (closed to the public!) and at the top are the residences of the da1a¡ 1ama (although he doesn’t see them much these days). In the 1990’s the Chinese remodelled the Palace. Critics claim the changes destroyed many of the unique aspects of the structure in order to make it more attractive to Chinese tourists.
In 1642 a Mongol-related people, the Manchu’s, had conquered China and established the Qing dynasty. Thirty years after assuming his title, the Great Fifth accepted their invitation to visit Beijing and thus became the first da1a¡ 1ama to visit China. Although the CPC claims this was a ‘tribute’ mission (sound familiar?), the reality is that the Manchu emperor was concerned with the 1578 prophecy of the third da1a¡ 1ama, that the descendants of Altan Khan would become supreme rulers of Mongolia and China in eighty years’ time. Given that t¡betans considered the Manchu’s to be closely related to the Mongols, the truth of the prophecy seemed to be confirmed. It should also be noted that the emperor walked up to the da1a¡ 1ama and grasped his hand, an unprecedented greeting appropriate only for an equal. However historians interpret the visit, none question the fact that after the death in 1654 of Gushri Khan, t¡bet’s greatest da1a¡ 1ama ruled a powerful independent empire whose geographical expanse rivalled that of the Qing. In battle after battle, the Great Fifth and his armies captured territory from Ladakh in present-day India, to the Burmese border and beyond. In places such as Yunnan he even fought the Manchus. In 1679 the Great Fifth dispelled the trappings of Mongol power and appointed as regent Sangye Gyatso, his spiritual, and possibly natural, son. The Great Fifth died three years later, but Sangye Gyatso concealed the fact from the t¡betan people for fifteen years in order to maintain stability and power. He searched for and found the Sixth da1a¡ 1ama, but kept the boy hidden in the Palace.
The Sixth da1a¡ 1ama grew up unhappy and was the only one who refused to become a monk. He wrote romantic verses and songs, and drank and had a good time with women. Without the assistance of the da1a¡ 1ama, Sangye Gyatso tried to promote an alliance with the powerful Mongol forces that threatened the Qing empire in central Asia. The Manchus defeated this new threat (partly by persuading the Russians to stop selling guns to the Mongols) and in turn urged their own Mongol allies to invade t¡bet. This they did and in 1705 they captured and killed Sanya Gyatso in Lhasa. The Mongols, led by Lajang and his soldier wife Jerinrasi, ordered the Sixth da1a¡ 1ama sent to the Chinese capital, but he was instead taken to Amdo and murdered. In 1707 Lajang installed his son as the new da1a¡ 1ama, which inflamed the t¡betan people and led to the overthrow of Lajang.
Things got so chaotic that in 1720 the Qing sent their own force to Lhasa. They installed a new da1a¡ 1ama from an old aristocratic t¡betan family and reorganised the Government to give the da1a¡ 1ama more power. This indicates a Qing attempt after 1720 to play a more active role in t¡bet, but the presence of 2,000 Manchu soldiers in Lhasa depleted the resources of the capital and created an inflationary spiral that local residents resented (this is similar to the inflationary spiral that the communists created after occupation). In 1723 a new Qing emperor withdrew the garrison and abandoned the administration of the country to t¡betans. In Kham the Qing incorporated all territory east of the Yanzi River into Sichuan Province and after 1724 annexed much of Amdo.
The main exports at this time were horses and rhubarb. Rhubarb (from t¡bet, Mongolia and China) was so important (for medicine) that from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries, it was one of the most expensive products on the market, selling in France for ten times the price of cinnamon and four times the price of saffron. By the late 1600’s, profits from rhubarb were so huge that tsarist Russia established a monopoly supervised by the Ministry of War. As a result, trade between Russia and China expanded tenfold. It was also the reason for Chinese immigration into t¡bet.
In 1728 a civil war broke out near the capital Lhasa, and both sides appealed to the Manchus for support. Worried the Mongols might become involved, the emperor ordered a large force to Lhasa and delegated two officials (called ambans) to reside there permanently. The ambans remained in Lhasa until the twentieth century, but the Qing were always careful never to station Chinese, only Manchus in t¡bet. Like the Mongols, the Manchus sincerely respected the da1a¡ 1ama and the Buddhist system, and the ambans, although nominally military chiefs, had little or no real power within t¡bet and were more concerned with extorting money from Chinese traders. In this regard, they were more like goodwill ambassadors.
More follows if anyone is actually interested…? |
_________________
Conlige suspectos semper habitos |
|
|
|
|
Fenno
Reacher
Joined: June 10, 2003
Posts: 345
Location: Shanghai
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 08:06 PM |
|
|
Yes please, I'm finding it quite interesting, thanks. |
|
|
|
|
|
yin/yang
Talker
Joined: Feb 21, 2004
Posts: 81
|
| Posted:
May 16, 2004 - 09:58 PM |
|
|
Please, Edgewood. I am particularly curious to see what you, or your source(s) would say about Chinese occupation of t¡bet, though we don’t use that word here.
As I said earlier, on t¡bet issues, the views are more polarized. For the same historical facts, people have different interpretations to serve their own purpose. For example, for the ambans Edgewood mentioned, the t¡betan exile government has been trying to tell people they are not much more than ambassadors. That’s very far from the truth. Amban (驻-reide藏-t¡bet大-great, big臣- minister) was translated into residential commissioner by some people. Word for word, it’s more like a minister resided in t¡bet. That’s just the name. But the more important thing is what role they played. As we shall see, it’s far more than just ambassadors.
Qing court started to send residential commissioners to t¡bet from 1727 and continued till the fall of the dynasty in 1911.There were 173 appointments for 135 people (some people were appointed more than once). Among them, 23 didn’t go to their post for one reason or another. Most of them were Manchus, then Mongolians. It’s not completely true that no Han Chinese was ever appointed. For example, the second from the last commissioner, Zhao Erfeng, a Han Chinese was appointed as the commissioner in 1908. Not only that, sometimes the emperor sent a Han Chinese as an imperial commissioner (钦差大臣-special envoy, a very powerful position to handle things on the emperor’s behalf. When he got anywhere, the officials had to kneel down and greeted him as they were greeting the emperor himself) to t¡bet. For example, Zhang Yintang, a Han Chinese, was sent as the imperial commissioner to handle the mess left by a very corrupt residential commissioner (You Tai), and punished him for his inaction regarding the invasion by the British from India.
Though it’s inconceivable to expect the residential commissioner and a few staff, linguistically handicapped and socially and politically isolated, could exert the broad control over the whole t¡bet, Qing’s rule was realized through the control of a few elites, da1a¡ lamas and Kashag officials rather than the daily administration. Sometimes they might not follow the commissioners’ words and do things on their own will even without the commissioners’ knowledge, but it’s generally tolerated as long as long as lamas were submissive and posed no threat. But when they saw a threat that t¡bet might break away, they would take some actions to rectify the situation. It happened only a few times during the entire 185 years’ rule of Qing. For example, after seeing “ the commissioners were not only unable to take charge but they were also kept uninformed, thus reduced the post of the commissioner to name only”, the emperor Qianlong issued an imperial decree, the 29 Articles On the Reconstruction of t¡betan Domestic Affairs in 1793 which consolidated the commissioners’ authority over administrative, military and religious appointment, foreign affairs, finance, taxation and criminal justice system. This imperial decree wasn’t challenged by t¡betans. No ambassador could have the following rights listed in the degree.
1, the incarnation of da1a¡ Lamas and Penchen lamas had to be approved by the Court,
2, the Court is in charge of the management of the border entry and exit,
3. the Court supervise the mint of the t¡betan currency,
5, the Court appoints the officers of the t¡betan army,
6, the salary of the army officers is provided by the commissioners,
8, the commissioner has the right to audit the income and expenditure of the da1a¡ 1ama and Penchen 1ama,
11, the commissioner appoints the local government officials,
13, the commissioner makes inspection of the t¡bet and its army twice a year,
14, the commissioner is in charge of the diplomatic affairs,
Though it’s another question that how much of this decree was implemented, it is no question who was in charge.
The point I want to make is, for t¡betan issues, most information we got was biased to some extent. For the same thing, there are usually two different descriptions that suggest different things. For example, the tribute made by t¡betans to the Ming emperors was described as trade in Edgewood’s source. t¡bet exile government mentioned as “visit”. For the Princess Wen Cheng’s wedding to Songtsen Gampo, I saw a pro-t¡bet source described that as both the emperors of Nepal and China offered their daughters, conveniently omitted the fact there were more than just “offer”. While it’s beneficial for Chinese to see something that’s drastically different from what they were fed by the government, I also would like to remind friends from out of China to be cautious in believing everything opposite to what the Chinese government says to be true. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edgewood
FooSlinger
| |
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
