| Author |
Message |
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
 Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 01:27 PM |
 
|
|
^ you misunderstood what I said. Or you are just trying to warp it for your own argument.
Are you actually trying to say that Mao didn't force the entire country into poverty for the sole benefit of the CCP? Explain to me how this massive redistribution of wealth benefited the peasants?
| Quote: |
| In fact the first thing Mao did was to redistribute land to the peasants. The peasants were basically screwed under the nationalists so what you are saying is imprecise. |
Weren't land owners (of which Mao and his family were) deemed as evil under the Communists, so when did the peasants receive title to this land?
Oh they didn't. Well, imagine that. It was always in the hands of hmmmmmm....the CCP and the people were allowed to work the land for the benefit of hmmmmmm...the chinese people? .....noooooo.....the Chinese gov't under the guise of Advancing the Great Nation!!! blah blah... oh yeah, that's right.
| Quote: |
| Further, studies show that by the increase in trade and globalization in general 300 million people got out of the poverty zone. Obviously not rich BUT the trend is positive. |
Okay, you have started smoking crack or something. Their was no globalisation AT ALL under the communists up to and during the time of the Cultural revolution and under no circumstances were 300million people moved out of poverty. It was the exact opposite of what you are describing. You are completely full of sh1t.
| Quote: |
| Hence, any argument like yours, that fails to acknowledge anything good the Communists might have done, is doomed to fall on deaf ears as it is pretty easy to label you as Anti-China and hence with a canned opinion on all that. |
Yeah, let me know the good that happened.
Are you trying to say Mao didn't abolish higher education within the country?
Of course t¡betans fought within themselves, do you know of any population on the planet that doesn't. Do you know of any TWO people on the planet that don't when spending time together. What a retarded argument. Oh t¡betans weren't peaceful, they had fights. I guess they should somehow be immune from being human with no ability to argue, quarrel, advance and change their society like anyone else, unless of course they are occupied and turned into Han Chinese.
Maybe you are trying to use the old colonialist argument and that you should take your own bias of what a soceity should be and apply it to the t¡betans.
Hmmmm, considering your 5 years of posts against people doing to this China one can only really look at what you have said and say... MASSIVE hypocrite.
| Quote: |
| The COmmunists did in tĦbet what they did elsewhere: took out a scummy elite out of the game and gave the little guy some chance. Over time that momentum waned off, but anyone not acknowledging the good is not prepared to debate rationally and let's face it, you aren't. |
HAHAHAHA, you are a total and complete fool if you believe anything the communists did was to take the control and power away from anyone who could threaten the communists control and power of the nation.
It had nothing to do with giving it back to the people, and the subsequent 50 years of rule showed that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
ARe you even trying to have a sensible debate?
The little guy had a chance did he? Hilarious.
Even when China started to open up its economy into a market economy I fail to see where the little guy was given a chance. First and foremosts a massive money and company grab went to the elite of the CCP and their relatives.
Trying to say otherwise is nothing but a huge load of sh1t. |
_________________
 |
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 01:31 PM |
|
|
| hc wrote: |
But that's the whole point: he is coming with the bad and we are saying hey there is the good side as well.
In general the bad is already factored in.
It's the opposite about tbet: nobody talks about the bad side of the dl and friends. |
There is good and bad in everything.
You say I am coming in with the bad. My point was quite clear but you seem to have a hard time understanding it.
IF you are use the arguements of pixelpunter to justify the Chinese actions towards t¡bet than someone could simply have used the same arguments for a justification and extinguishing of Han Chinese cultural and rule of its own country during the years of Mao communist rule.
If that means I have to point out how bad it was then excuse me I am sorry I offended your tender little ears.
Now go back to spewing your hatred of t¡bet. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 01:47 PM |
|
|
"force the entire country into poverty for"
SOnny, they were already dirt poor before the CCP was in charge.
Go ask the 300 million people out of the poverty line if they are happier.
Weren't land owners (of which Mao and his family were) deemed as evil under the Communists, so when did the peasants receive title to this land?
Under communist land ownership is collective so they would NEVER RECEIVE TITLE TO THIS LAND! 
Okay, you have started smoking crack or something. Their was no globalisation AT ALL under the communists up to and during the time of the Cultural revolution and under no circumstances were 300million people moved out of poverty. It was the exact opposite of what you are describing. You are completely full of sh1t.
Oh wait, you talking about CR and stuff. Granted, you are right. The 300 million people was a fairly recent accomplishment, from mid 90s on mostly. Point taken.
Are you trying to say Mao didn't abolish higher education within the country?
Of course tĦbetans fought within themselves, do you know of any population on the planet that doesn't. Do you know of any TWO people on the planet that don't when spending time together. What a retarded argument. Oh tĦbetans weren't peaceful, they had fights. I guess they should somehow be immune from being human with no ability to argue, quarrel, advance and change their society like anyone else, unless of course they are occupied and turned into Han Chinese.
Side effect of the CR. Further, you are mixing Mao with the CCP and using them interchangeably. Again, another massive misconception of the west, thinking the CCP is this one complete uniform block of drones, just like in the Rambo movies. Wrong.
The CR is completely wrong (although aspects of it were interesting) and unfortunate. The exception not the rule. But yeah, sure, convenient to use it the way you are saying that CCP = CR. Nobody slightly on their minds would ever do that, but go ahead.
Maybe you are trying to use the old colonialist argument and that you should take your own bias of what a soceity should be and apply it to the tĦbetans.
Hmmmm, considering your 5 years of posts against people doing to this China one can only really look at what you have said and say... MASSIVE hypocrite.
Not at all, the reason I mention that is to dispel your juvenile perception as tbtans being the peaceful people that cant harm a worm.
In fact by saying that they fought you are negating 80% of what Hollywood portrays them to be. Have a look at 7 years in tbet for example the scene where they stop building a theater because worms were being harmed. Goebbles smiled!
HAHAHAHA, you are a total and complete fool if you believe anything the communists did was to take the control and power away from anyone who could threaten the communists control and power of the nation.
Well. How do you prove your point? just with your oh-pinion?
It had nothing to do with giving it back to the people, and the subsequent 50 years of rule showed that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Not at all: in the early 50s land was redistributed, productivity did increase (it was easy to do that as the country was in shambles) and several other things were made. Male and female had equal rights by then, differently from large portions of the world by the way. \
Perhaps I should question your assumptions then, so that we can discuss in a more productive manner: in your opinion did the communists did ANYTHING worth of praise from 49 on? ANYTHING? If yes, mention to us.
ARe you even trying to have a sensible debate?
The little guy had a chance did he? Hilarious.
Well, lotsa people got land. Later on, without proper training and education for some specific tasks they pretty much couldnt achieve their potential so to speak.
Even when China started to open up its economy into a market economy I fail to see where the little guy was given a chance. First and foremosts a massive money and company grab went to the elite of the CCP and their relatives.
True. Corruption is rife, but that is not because of the communists. The nationalists were equally or more corrupts, and our buddy Confucius is the big propeller of that. To say the CCP is corrupt without acknowledging the Nationalists is simplistic, which is exactly what your argument is.
Trying to say otherwise is nothing but a huge load of sh1t.
Ah ok. Good debating techniques.
A says: "Blablabla"
B says: "No. It's not blablabla it's bilubilubilu because of X, Y and Z".
A then retorts: "Trying to say Blablabla is right is nothing but a huge load of sh1t."
Cannot take you seriously can I? |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
 |
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 01:51 PM |
|
|
IF you are use the arguements of pixelpunter to justify the Chinese actions towards tĦbet than someone could simply have used the same arguments for a justification and extinguishing of Han Chinese cultural and rule of its own country during the years of Mao communist rule.
Wouldnt you invade any territory where a few oligarchs were living in luxury and their people were starving? Wouldnt you want to top a regime full of serfs, abduction of young kids as slaves, physical punishment, the elite living in complete richness, massive debts being passed on to generations, etc, etc, etc?
To say you wouldnt mean you are an hypocrite.
To say you would makes you agree with the CCP.
Pick your poison.
Further: I bet you are in favor of a democracy right? That means you cant be in favor of a THEOCRACY at the same time, isnt it so? By definition Tbt as the movies told you cannot and will never ever be a democracy. China at least is slowly slowly getting there. Will still take some decades though. |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 01:57 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Are you actually trying to say that Mao didn't force the entire country into poverty for the sole benefit of the CCP? |
Newsflash: CCP didn't force China into poverty -- it was already there long before Mao & Co. came along. |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:04 PM |
|
|
No I am not really taking this seriously.
I dont want to debate if the CUM (Communists under Mao) did anything good. Of course they did things that were good for some and bad for others like any other gov't. But overall, and in general terms, my feeling is that most of what they did was not different from what most humans try to do. Use any means necessary to gain power and control over others. Simple as that. Mao was just obviously very good at it.
My point is just that, if you justify occupation of others land based on what is nothing but normal human behaviour is not right. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:07 PM |
|
|
... except that t¡bet has always been part of China. |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:07 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you actually trying to say that Mao didn't force the entire country into poverty for the sole benefit of the CCP? |
Newsflash: CCP didn't force China into poverty -- it was already there long before Mao & Co. came along. |
Newsflash, economically in all measurements they were worse off under the CUM.
Anyway, I guess your argument Dfoo is that it would have been all the better reason to occupy them sooner and have a foreign power take over and control them, they would have been much better off, just like the t¡betans now. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:11 PM |
|
|
What measurements are they? Here is another small pointer to you -- China is still under the rule of the CCP. Economy seems to be going pretty well these days.
And China was no more a foreign power in t¡bet than the Americans are in the US, or, the Canadians for that matter, in Canada. t¡bet has been part of China longer than the US or Canada have existed. |
|
|
|
|
|
hc
Post Roaster
Joined: Apr 04, 2007
Posts: 4545
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:13 PM |
|
|
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
| dfoo wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Are you actually trying to say that Mao didn't force the entire country into poverty for the sole benefit of the CCP? |
Newsflash: CCP didn't force China into poverty -- it was already there long before Mao & Co. came along. |
Newsflash, economically in all measurements they were worse off under the CUM.
Anyway, I guess your argument Dfoo is that it would have been all the better reason to occupy them sooner and have a foreign power take over and control them, they would have been much better off, just like the tĦbetans now. |
Source? |
_________________
Click here to read the latest retarded PM Natalie sent me. Let's make her lose face and FINALLY leave this site. |
|
|
|
|
Nathalie25
Board Legend
Joined: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 10387
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:19 PM |
|
|
| Quote: |
Wouldnt you invade any territory where a few oligarchs were living in luxury and their people were starving? Wouldnt you want to top a regime full of serfs, abduction of young kids as slaves, physical punishment,
| Quote: |
| the elite living in complete richness, |
massive debts being passed on to generations, etc, etc, etc?
To say you wouldnt mean you are an hypocrite.
To say you would makes you agree with the CCP.
Pick your poison.
Further:
| Quote: |
| I bet you are in favor of a democracy right? That means you cant be in favor of a THEOCRACY at the same time, isnt it so? By definition Tbt as the movies told you cannot and will never ever be a democracy |
. China at least is slowly slowly getting there. Will still take some decades though. |
most elites they used to live in Slum area, they can be rich, because they drive them to do the things diligently and seriously for getting what they want.
And I dislike democracy, I like peace, I like the people who never drive them crazy or who never push themselves hard to crash the wall down for null~~~~~~ |
_________________
功高盖主，必有祸出。人生是人类生命中内心和万般经历的真实写照。 http:/
Last edited by Nathalie25 on Apr 25, 2008 - 02:20 PM; edited 1 time in total |
|
 
 |
|
beautiful_mind0905
Board Lord
Joined: June 18, 2006
Posts: 5647
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:19 PM |
|
|
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinion, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
Source: Mr Wilde. |
_________________
Women are the ones who maintain the world while men throw it into disarray with their historic brutality. |
|
|
|
|
Nathalie25
Board Legend
Joined: Aug 24, 2004
Posts: 10387
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:23 PM |
|
|
Ok, I am living in slum area now, I am not an elite, I am fool, I like peace, I am looking for the scene or the picture it can be eternally in life, it won't be 3 or 4 years to fool around~~~~~ |
_________________
功高盖主，必有祸出。人生是人类生命中内心和万般经历的真实写照。 http:/ |
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:26 PM |
|
|
"Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousands of years.
Mao Zedong " |
|
|
|
|
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:27 PM |
|
|
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
Where was I in 2001? What are you referring too exactly? |
I am referring to the year that China was given permission to hold the Olympics in 2008. Where was you bleeding heart sentimentalism then?
I am sick and fcuking tired of hearing 'fashion prοtesters' such as yourself crying about how bad the Chinese were/are/will be to t¡bet.
Just for the record I am pretty damn sure that the Chinese took t¡bet by any means necessary - stories of nuns being raped, children forced to shoot dead their own parents seem all credible to me - but please FOR **** SAKE don't try to convince anyone here that the da1a¡ 1ama is a 'really good bloke' just because Richard Gere had a few beers with him or that the t¡betans are peaceful creatures, kind of like hippies without all the dope.
Soft soap bullfeces from soft soap bullshitters.
 |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:27 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
| ... except that tĦbet has always been part of China. |
Dfoo, that is just not true, and almost mindbloggingly dumb, but usual CCP proganda often is.
I can't do justice to 2000 years of t¡betan history in a few posts. And actually i don't really care too. IF you always think t¡bet was part of China then you know even less than me about the topic.
So maybe explain to me why you think t¡bet has "always" been part of China and I look at your points as you present them because its pretty clear to me t¡bet has not always been part of China.
If it was, then why did the CUM force t¡bet to sign the Seventeen Point Agreement on the t¡betan government, demanding that t¡bet "return" to Chinese sovereignty. If they "always" were seems like a strange move by the CUM.
One example of 2000 years of history. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:29 PM |
|
|
Just for the record, Britain has FOR A VERY LONG TIME, considered t¡bet to be part of China. |
_________________
And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? |
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:33 PM |
|
|
| oh_the_darkness wrote: |
| *CheerLeader*Mao wrote: |
Where was I in 2001? What are you referring too exactly? |
I am referring to the year that China was given permission to hold the Olympics in 2008. Where was you bleeding heart sentimentalism then?
I am sick and fcuking tired of hearing 'fashion prοtesters' such as yourself crying about how bad the Chinese were/are/will be to tĦbet.
Just for the record I am pretty damn sure that the Chinese took tĦbet by any means necessary - stories of nuns being raped, children forced to shoot dead their own parents seem all credible to me - but please FOR **** SAKE don't try to convince anyone here that the da1aĦ 1ama is a 'really good bloke' just because Richard Gere had a few beers with him or that the tĦbetans are peaceful creatures, kind of like hippies without all the dope.
Soft soap bullfeces from soft soap bullshitters.
|
Mate, I have no idea what you are talking about. I hate Richard Gere, have never seen a Hollywood movie about t¡bet and wouldn't listen to anything Richard Gere said anyway let alone have you accusing me spouting off the "same" hollywood fashionista crap.
I don't even know who you are arguing with and you didn't address any of my points.
Bleeding heart sentimentality? Fine, but you seem to have an all knowing understanding of moral truths and that they should revolve around your thinking.
Maybe there are some other options out there you simple minded ignorant fool. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:34 PM |
|
|
CLM, it is clear that you have never ever done an ounce of research on this topic. Stolen online after 30 seconds of searching:
| Quote: |
The British government recognized Chinese sovereignty over t¡bet in 1792, and again in the Anglo-Chinese Conventions of 1876, 1890 and 1906 and in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907.
In 1943 the United States government formally reaffirmed that it had never raised a question regarding China's claim that t¡bet was part of China. "The Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over t¡bet and that the Chinese constitution lists t¡bet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:35 PM |
|
|
| oh_the_darkness wrote: |
| Just for the record, Britain has FOR A VERY LONG TIME, considered tĦbet to be part of China. |
Wow a such a good argument. Britain, wow, those all knowing colonialists. And you say this despite speeches to the UN that have said otherwise.
Wow!! |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
dfoo
Post Roaster
Joined: Jan 19, 2005
Posts: 4140
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:37 PM |
|
|
^ lots of nations stand up in front of the UN and say all kinds of crap. Doesn't mean its true... |
|
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:40 PM |
|
|
| dfoo wrote: |
CLM, it is clear that you have never ever done an ounce of research on this topic. Stolen online after 30 seconds of searching:
| Quote: |
The British government recognized Chinese sovereignty over tĦbet in 1792, and again in the Anglo-Chinese Conventions of 1876, 1890 and 1906 and in the Anglo-Russian Convention of 1907.
In 1943 the United States government formally reaffirmed that it had never raised a question regarding China's claim that tĦbet was part of China. "The Government of the United States has borne in mind the fact that the Chinese Government has long claimed suzerainty over tĦbet and that the Chinese constitution lists tĦbet among areas constituting the territory of the Republic of China. This Government has at no time raised a question regarding either of these claims. |
|
Dfoo the goggle boy is back. Okay, two can play this game.
Anyway, your point was ALWAYS, not in 1792. But here goes goggle boy.
| Quote: |
| The Qing Dynasty (1644-1911): Beijing is opposed to past Western and Japanese imperialism, but sees nothing wrong in claiming t¡bet based on the Manchu Qing Empire. This claim doesn't stand up either. The Manchu rulers of China were Buddhists, and t¡bet's da1a¡ Lamas and the Manchu emperors had a special priest-patron relationship called Cho-Yon whereby China committed to providing protection to the largely demilitarized t¡betan state. Chinese nationalists may see this as sovereignty, but it wasn't. As the relationship became strained, China at various times exercised influence and sent armies into t¡bet - but so did Nepal during this time. China expanded its influence in t¡bet after 1720, as a powerful country dealing with a weaker neighbor. It later tried to occupy t¡bet by force, violating the Cho-Yon relationship, but with the fall of the Qing Dynasty in 1911, t¡betans expelled the Chinese and the 13th da1a¡ 1ama proclaimed t¡bet's complete independence. Until the Chinese invasion of 1950-51, t¡bet enjoyed full sovereignty as defined under international law: it had a territory, a population, a government exercising effective control, and the ability to enter into international relations (such as the 1914 Simla Convention with Britain, trade delegations to the West, and neutrality in World War II). |
| Quote: |
The seventh century: Beijing used to claim that the marriage of t¡bet's King Srongtsen Gampo to Chinese Tang Dynasty Princess Wencheng in 641 A.D. marked the "union of the t¡betan and Han Chinese nationalities." It stopped claiming this when it was repeatedly pointed out that Wencheng was junior to Srongtsen Gampo's Nepali wife, Princess Brikuti, and that the Tang emperor was forced to give his daughter because of the strength of the t¡betan empire. In fact, the t¡betan army sacked and briefly occupied the Tang capital in 765 A.D., and the 822 A.D. peace treaty forced the Chinese to treat the "barbarian" t¡betans as equals.
· The 13th century: Beijing claims that t¡bet became part of China during the Yuan Dynasty in the mid-13th century. The Yuan was actually a Mongol empire, with Chinggis Khan and his descendents conquering China and nations from Korea to Eastern Europe. For China to claim t¡bet based on this would be like India claiming Burma since both were part of the British Empire. The Mongols never ruled t¡bet as an administrative region of China, and t¡bet was given special treatment because t¡bet's Sakya lamas were the religious teachers of the Mongol emperors. By the fall of the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, t¡bet had again become in charge of its own affairs.
· 1951: China claims sovereignty over t¡bet from before 1951, but this is an important date. This is when after defeating t¡bet's small army, China imposed the Seventeen Point Agreement on the t¡betan government, demanding that t¡bet "return" to Chinese sovereignty (raising the uncomfortable question of why such a surrender treaty was needed unless t¡bet was a country independent of China in the first place). This Agreement was legally invalid because of duress, but the t¡betan government had little choice but to try to coexist with China under its provisions. It became clear that Beijing had no intention to live up to its promises, and the t¡betan government fully repudiated the document during China's brutal suppression of the 1959 t¡betan uprising.
· "Always": Do we even need to respond to this? Irish Ambassador to the U.N. Frank Aiken said it best in the U.N.'s debate on t¡bet in 1959: "Looking around this assembly,
I think how many benches would be empty in this hall if it had always been agreed that when a small nation or a small people fall in the grip of a major power no one could ever raise their voice here; that once there was a subject nation, then must always remain a subject nation. t¡bet has fallen into the hands of the Chinese People's Republic for the last few years. For thousands of years,
it was as free and as fully in control of its own affairs as any nation in this Assembly, and a thousand times more free to look after its own affairs than many of the nations here."
|
Now tell me why any of this matters?
Should t¡betans have the right to decide what is working for them and what isn't and make the choices on how they best see fit to advance their country, region, religion, culture and lives? |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
Kiwi
Post Boaster
Joined: May 07, 2003
Posts: 4763
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:44 PM |
|
|
The Yuan and the Qing most certainly did NOT consider t¡bet to be 'a part of China'. They considered it to be a part of an empire that happened to also include China. t¡bet and China were completely separate entities within that empire though.
And the Ming did not rule t¡bet at all. They had more real influence in Korea than t¡bet - is Korea a 'part of China'? |
_________________
[offensive signature removed by ADMIN] |
|
|
|
|
*CheerLeader*Mao
Post Roaster
Joined: July 07, 2004
Posts: 4678
Location: frenCh belgiuM
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:45 PM |
|
|
Amazing how Britain entered into agreements with t¡bet separately if it believed it to be a part of another country ie. China at the time in 1914.
I guess the 1792 precedent didn't really hold up. |
_________________
|
|
|
|
|
oh_the_darkness
Fire-eater
Joined: Apr 17, 2008
Posts: 2528
Status: Offline
|
| Posted:
Apr 25, 2008 - 02:45 PM |
|
|
^ Of course it is. They speak Hanguohua. Otherwise known as Korean Dialect. |
_________________
And you may ask yourself Am I right? ...am I wrong? And you may tell yourself My god!...what have I done? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Preferences
Watched Topics
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
