China's claims to Tibet are stronger than the US' to California?

[gitfiddle]

First of all, there are so many ways for this to cause people to get off topic. Both Tibet and lands in the US that many believe were stolen can be cause for emotional disputes. I want to stick to the facts as much as possible.

The questions are in bold.

I read this the other day, and I got to thinking, asking myself if there is any comparison between the US’ control of California and China’s control of Tibet. To be clear, I do not particularly like the website the story comes from, but I read it to challenge my own beliefs, specifically on Taiwan.

The basic premise of the article is this: If Americans want to pressure China to let go of it’s grip on Tibet, then, in fairness, Americans must re-evaluate their claims to California.

I’ll go through the claims from the article, and ask questions after them.

Claim #1:

These Hollywood stars, who hold deeds to high-priced real estate in Beverly Hills, Bel Air, Brentwood, and Malibu, will probably say that “Too much time has passed. What’s done is done. California is now irrevocably a part of the United States. You can’t turn the clock back.”

It’s my understanding that the Dalai Lama himself said that Tibet, in order to modernize, needs to be a part of China. However, he stands for Tibet’s right to a certain level of autonomy, which China (the PRC) has not afforded them.

Is this correct?

Also,** how much control did China (before the PRC and ROC) exercise over Tibet?** Was it like other regions in Asia that had kings who ruled over the people, though those kings paid homage to the Chinese Emperor? I’m reaching back to my college classes in Chinese history for that latter point. I think, for instance, I learned that Vietnam at one point had a king who was free to rule over the Vietnamese, but he was subject to the Chinese Emperor. ** So, just how much control did China exercise or how much autonomy did China give to Tibet historically?**

Claim #2

Many Dalai Lama acolytes don’t even know that the honorific title “Dalai,” as in “Dalai Lama,” is not even a Tibetan word. It is a Mongolian word. It was first conferred upon leaders of Tibet’s lamaist theocracy by the Mongolians during the Yuan dynasty. It was later conferred upon Tibet’s theocrats by Hans during China’s Ming dynasty, and Manchus during China’s Qing dynasty.

That’s right. The Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China.

This to me seems nothing more than an etymological fault. Like saying that since the French word for work comes from the Latin word for suffering, then all French people look at work as suffering (no jokes, that’s too easy).

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the term “Dalai Lama” comes from the Mongol prince Altan-Khan’s translation of the 3rd Dalai Lama’s name: Sonam Gyatso. Gyatso means “Ocean” in Tibetan, and Lama is the Tibetan word indicating a priest of high rank. All the Mongol prince did was translate Gyatso into the Mongolian word for “ocean,” which is dalai.

The only way Chu, who wrote the article, could make the argument that the “Dalai Lama has traditionally derived his authority from China” is if he could prove that it was the Emperor of China who chose each successive Dalai Lama, which is not the case, for now :

in 2007 China announced new regulations to govern the reincarnation of all Tibetan clergy: it has said it will have the last word in determining whether someone has been reincarnated. In other words, atheist party officials will govern Tibetan spiritual decisions.

The way I understand it is that the succession of the Dalai Lama is dictated by consultation of the Nechung Oracle. Therefore, the authority of the Dalai Lama is derived from of the people who believe in the oracles’ ability to sense into which body the phowa has chosen to channel the Dalai Lama’s “mindstream.”

Is this correct? Traditionally, has China played any role in selecting the Dalai Lama?

Claim #3

Either the US owns California, or it doesn’t. If the US owns California, then China owns Tibet. If the US feels it has a strong case for the ownership of California, then China has an infinitely stronger case for the ownership of Tibet.

I’m not going to defend 19th century American beliefs in Manifest Destiny, but this claim still doesn’t seem very logical. Between the US and Mexico, there was the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was ratified by both sides, right? Does any such agreement exist between Tibet and China? Does it matter?

Are there any precedents around the world where a region (with different religious belief, cultural history from the rest of the population) broke off from a larger nation? I know there are certainly disputes that are ongoing now (Kurdistan, Kosovo*, etc.), but are there any places that were long considered a part of one country, but the people of that region decided they wanted to be independent and are now an independent nation? Mongolia?

In fact, **is Mongolia the best counter-argument to Chu’s assertion that history and traditional control trumps all?

*** I’m classifying that as ongoing, only because it doesn’t seem totally settled.

[Little_Nemo]

I don’t think anyone’s disputing that California and Tibet were both acquired by the same means; military force.

The California case is pretty simple. The United States and Mexico fought a war from 1846 to 1848 and under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the war, Mexico surrendered the land that’s now California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming to the United States.

Tibet’s a little more complicated. China say Tibet’s been part of China for over seven hundred years. Sorta. The Mongol Empire conquered China and Tibet back in the 13th century and incorporated Tibet into China. The Chinese later regained control of their own country when Mongol power declined. The Chinese never officially relinquished the ownership of Tibet they inherited from the Mongols but Tibet had a quasi-autonomus status which grew over the years. By the 17th century, the Dalai Lama effectively ruled the country with no Chinese interference. The Chinese Empire collapsed in 1912 and Tibet officially declared it was now an independant country. But it was never legally recognized as such by the China or any other country. In 1951, China decided to reassert its long dormant claims of ownership to Tibet and occupied the country.

So I don’t think anyone’s disputing that China owns Tibet now and shows no sings of giving it up. Whether its ownership started in 1271 or 1951 is a matter of opinion. Whether military occupation is sufficient grounds for ownership and how long that ownership must last in order to be “legal” is another debate. And this being China, there’s always the issue of the rival claims of Beijing and Taipei.

[PBear42]

Leaving aside the details, the article linked in the OP makes a fundamentally sound point, with which I find few Americans are familiar. This point is that the Chinese didn’t so much annex Tibet in 1951 as reclaim it. And Tibet had only claimed to be independent in 1912, during a relatively anarchistic period in Chinese history. Wikipedia recites the basic facts with no obvious errors I can see. Tibetan independence, then, was a brief blip in the march of history, not some obvious and natural state which the Chinese set at naught by the brute force of arms.

BTW, I’m not a China sympathizer and, in fact, have huge problems with its system of government. It’s not a place I would want to live. OTOH, facile identification with the Free Tibet movement because the Dalai Lama is a neat guy strikes me as, well, tokenism.

[China_Guy]

@PBear42

Leaving aside the details, the article linked in the OP makes a fundamentally sound point, with which I find few Americans are familiar. This point is that the Chinese didn’t so much annex Tibet in 1951 as reclaim it. And Tibet had only claimed to be independent in 1912, during a relatively anarchistic period in Chinese history. Wikipedia recites the basic facts with no obvious errors I can see. Tibetan independence, then, was a brief blip in the march of history, not some obvious and natural state which the Chinese set at naught by the brute force of arms.

At what point does a “historical” claim remain valid? As pointed out earlier, Tibet was part of the ***Mongolian ** * empire, of which China was a small albeit important piece. Now the Han Chinese have for an extremely long time believed that the Mongolian Yuan Dynasty was really “Chinese” and not Mongolian. This point is really the fundamental rock upon which all Chinese claims to Tibet stem from. Some people might find this claim ludicrous, but there ya go.

Tibet claimed to be independant long before 1912. 1912 was merely the most recent time the claim was made.

Tang Dynasty China was rivaled by both the Nanchao Kingdom of Dali and Tibet. Chinese claim that Princess Wenchang was given to the Tibetan king as his wife (one of several) to civilize the Tibetans at this time. Another school of thought is that in return for agreeing not to sack the ancient capital of Chang’an (Xi’an), the Chinese emperor gave up his daughter. No doubt Princess Wenchang was held in high esteem by the Tibetans, the Jokhang Temple (ironically the scene of "disturbances in 1956, 1987 and 2008) was built in her honor and houses a buddhest relic that she brought to Tibet as part of her dowry.

[XT]

Is there a large movement in California for independence based on pre-US rule? To be sure some of my hispanic brethren and sistren WANT parts of the South West to be autonomous (but not to revert either back to Spanish/Mexican rule or even further back to the original Native Americans control)…but they are pretty much the lunatic fringe (even those in my own family are pretty much wacked).

I would say that unless the faction for independence or semi-autonomy in Tibet are similarly of the lunatic fringe variety that this would be the key difference. It has nothing to do with historical claim…which is pure bullshit. Historically lands have changed hands many times due to warfare, conquest and migration. What matters is if there is a sizable population that WANTS to be independent…and unless I’m mistaken there IS such a population in Tibet. While in California…not so much.

-XT

[Giles]

The cited article mentions polls in which a majority of Mexicans believe the southwestern US should be part of Mexico. That’s irrelevant from the point of view of self-determination. The question should be whether a majority of those living in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas want to be rejoined with Mexico. As far as I can tell, they don’t.

On the other hand, clearly there are some people in those states who want to be part of Mexico, even though they are a minority. (There are probably some people in Washington State who would like to be part of Canada in the same way). If they want to campaign politically to be be rejoined with Mexico, there is nothing to stop them. The US Constitution gives them them right to do it, and neither the federal government nor the relevant state governments will send in police or security officials to break up their peaceful demonstrations or stop them displaying their slogans in public. Things are very different in China, of course.

[Bricker]

@xtisme

Is there a large movement in California for independence based on pre-US rule? To be sure some of my hispanic brethren and sistren WANT parts of the South West to be autonomous (but not to revert either back to Spanish/Mexican rule or even further back to the original Native Americans control)…but they are pretty much the lunatic fringe (even those in my own family are pretty much wacked).

Por La Raza todo, fuera La Raza nada.

[Little_Nemo]

I’m surprised China didn’t point out the more advantageous parallel: the United States government’s opposition to the secession of South Carolina and other southern states in 1860-1861. There’s always that awkward moment in American diplomacy when we announce our support for any secessionist movement in another country and the government of that country points out that we didn’t allow it to happen here.

[XT]

@Bricker

Por La Raza todo, fuera La Raza nada.

To which I generally reply ‘pendejos!’

Yeah well…unfortunately you can’t pick your relatives, ehe?

-XT

[John_Mace]

@Bricker

Por La Raza todo, fuera La Raza nada.

Fuera de La Raza…

[XT]

@John Mace

Fuera de La Raza…

Technically correct, but you can drop the ‘de’ and in fact I would say it ‘fuera raza’ (‘outside (the) race’, but the ‘the’ is implied). Or, I suppose if you wanted to speak proper Spanish (with a lisp) you could say ‘fuera del raza’.

But I think officially it’s as you quoted it…though admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve heard the phrase. Bring back some bad memories…

-XT

[John_Mace]

@xtisme

Technically correct, but you can drop the ‘de’ and in fact I would say it ‘fuera raza’ (‘outside (the) race’, but the ‘the’ is implied). Or, I suppose if you wanted to speak proper Spanish (with a lisp) you could say ‘fuera del raza’.

But I think officially it’s as you quoted it…though admittedly it’s been a while since I’ve heard the phrase. Bring back some bad memories…

As used in El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán, the phrase is written with “de”. I believe that is where it originated. Probably more formal since it’s written.

[Darryl_Lict]

Isn’t part of the problem with Tibet that ethnic Chinese are migrating to Tibet and diminishing the traditional culture? I assume that the ethnic Tibetans were there for a long enough time to be considered the indigenous peoples.

In California AFAIK, by the time the United States had gotten involved, the Mexicans had already pretty much wiped out the Native American culture. We then stole it from the Mexicans fair and square. This seems like a markedly different situation than Tibet.

[John_Mace]

@Darryl Lict

Isn’t part of the problem with Tibet that ethnic Chinese are migrating to Tibet and diminishing the traditional culture? I assume that the ethnic Tibetans were there for a long enough time to be considered the indigenous peoples.

Yes, but if Tibet is part of China, then that’s kinda just too bad. I don’t see what can be expected to be done about that. China is a sovereign nation with many different ethnicities within its border, not just Tibet. Many European countries have a similar “problems”. Norther Ireland, Spain and France (with the Basques), etc. And if you go back a few hundred years it’s even worse.

[Eben]

@gitfiddle

Are there any precedents around the world where a region (with different religious belief, cultural history from the rest of the population) broke off from a larger nation? I know there are certainly disputes that are ongoing now (Kurdistan, Kosovo*, etc.), but are there any places that were long considered a part of one country, but the people of that region decided they wanted to be independent and are now an independent nation? Mongolia?

How about all the eastern European countries that belonged to the USSR? Seems like a fairly recent and mostly successful example.

[Giles]

@Eben

How about all the eastern European countries that belonged to the USSR? Seems like a fairly recent and mostly successful example.

Another example is Ireland, which is also “fairly recent and mostly successful”. Of course, political opinions are divided on this issue, especially in Northern Ieland.

One more example, much closer to China, is Bangladesh, which split off from India to be part of Pakistan in 1947, then split off from Pakistan in 1971. Presumably China is urging that it be reunited with one or both of these countries.

[John_Mace]

@Eben

How about all the eastern European countries that belonged to the USSR? Seems like a fairly recent and mostly successful example.

But that’s because the USSR’s biggest Republic, namely Russia, broke off from it. Once that happened, the smaller states around the periphery were gone, baby, gone.

China isn’t set up that way.

[ralph124c]

Wasn’t Tibet, Vietnam, Mongolia, korea, all tributaries of the Chinese Emperor? They kept their own rulers, but acknowledged the supremacy of the emperor.
Face it, china has done a lot for Tibet. their rule is (unnecessarily) brutal, but the tibetans are probably better off than they were in 1957

[Darryl_Lict]

@Eben

How about all the eastern European countries that belonged to the USSR? Seems like a fairly recent and mostly successful example.

This actually is somewhat analogous to the Chinese situation. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia had been annexed into the USSR. Many ethnic Russians moved into the 3 countries. Many never learned the native language. In my experience, there are plenty of ethnic Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians who resent the ethnic Russians.

My Russian buddy thinks I’m full of shit, and I’ve been completely wrong on cultural issues before, so my apologies in advance if I’m completely misinterpreting the situation.

[Bridget_Burke]

@Giles

The cited article mentions polls in which a majority of Mexicans believe the southwestern US should be part of Mexico. That’s irrelevant from the point of view of self-determination. The question should be whether a majority of those living in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas want to be rejoined with Mexico. As far as I can tell, they don’t.

On the other hand, clearly there are some people in those states who want to be part of Mexico, even though they are a minority. (There are probably some people in Washington State who would like to be part of Canada in the same way). If they want to campaign politically to be be rejoined with Mexico, there is nothing to stop them. The US Constitution gives them them right to do it, and neither the federal government nor the relevant state governments will send in police or security officials to break up their peaceful demonstrations or stop them displaying their slogans in public. Things are very different in China, of course.

The cited article mentions “a poll.” But doesn’t let us know who did the poll. Perhaps somebody dropped by an LA cantina & asked some questions…

Most Mexicans came here to get away from the problems of Mexico. I doubt they want the people who’ve run their fine country into the ground to rule here.