In the days of the Chinese Empire, Tibet was a tributary state of China. The King of Tibet acknowledged the supremacy of the Chinese Emperor-that was it.
I wonder what Tibet would be like (today) if it had been dominated by India instead?
Yes, the Chinese rule has been harsh, but would Indian rule be better?
Even though this may be true (rocket wise), I have trouble believing this fact ever entered any Chinese officials’ minds. Or are you whooshing (I’m tired).
My mom has told me that she wished Mongolia was still part of China. The reason being that it would make China’s map look like a nice leaf instead of something with a hole on the top. I can only assume her sense of aesthetics isn’t shared by people who are actually in power to dictate foreign policy
No, no, leave your Mom in charge. I’d love to see nations turned into aesthetically pleasing shapes.
Had the US won on a couple of negotiating points, we could look much more balanced, too.
If during the settlement with Mexico, we had obtained Baja California like the then President wanted, this peninsula on the west would have balanced Florida on the east.
And if we had obtained Vancouver Island and lands there, it would have balanced Maine off to the east.
Much better looking shape on a map!
It would be like Ladakh (northern state of India with many Tibetan refugees and a landscape similar to Tibet)… a place where Tibetan culture is flourishing. India is a democracy with official equality for all religions.
I told some students that I am planning on going to Mongolia before I return to the States. One student asked “good Mongolia or bad Mongolia.” I laughed and said “Well, that depends on what you are calling good and what you are calling bad.” He clarified that he considered the country of Mongolia to be a traitor for leaning so closely to Russia.
I’ve also heard the “China’s borders would look nicer” thing, believe it or not.
I have no idea if these views are representative. My students say all kinds of wacky things.
Taiwan still claims outer Mongolia. Sorry I’m posting from my PDA and can’t search. I have posted on this before complete with maps on the disputed area.
I knew some of the Tibetan & Mongolian Affairs Commission people in Taiwan back in the 1980’s. they funded the Tibetan Children’s Home in Taipei for orphans. The head guy was an ex monk from Aba Area in northern Sichuan who studied in the Ganzi Monastery.
Let’s also say that many Chinese claims on Tibet may not stand up to a GD cite standard.
From what I understand, the latitude has a much more substantial effect on the ease of rocket launch than the actual elevation, though there is probably some point where you are high enough up already that it doesn’t matter. This is why the US has its space ports in Cali, Texas, and Florida, and not in the Rockies somewhere. IIRC, France has a spaceport on Devil’s Island (on the equator, no less), while Russia has to make do with Kazakhstan, which is much farther north (and why Russian rockets have their reputation for being so… big looking. They need the extra oomph to get up in the air.)
It has to do with the rotation of the Earth giving the rocket a boosty-up. You get more of a fling near the equator than near the poles.
Personal anecdote …
I was sitting around one day back in grad school, with two fellow students who were native Chinese, asking them genial questions about their country and its major cities. We didn’t have an atlas handy, so one of them stood up and started sketching an outline of China on the blackboard. He said descriptively, “So, China is shaped like a giant chicken…”
The other one suddenly snapped at him, “It is not a chicken!”
This cherished memory has stayed with me for over 20 years.
FWIW, my wife is from mainland China, and she also says China is shaped like a chicken. Taiwan and Hainan islands are the feet, Beijing is in the neck.
So they need Tibet … for the eggs?
To sell hiking passes for Everest?
That, and organ harvesting, would be my guess.
Exactly. No Tibet, no more eggs. It’s that simple, really…
Huh? Indian mobilization began on December 4, 1971, the day after Pakistan launched preemptive air strikes against airfields in northwest India. The timing had nothing to do with the Chinese.
No, I believed that latitude was relevant to launchings; I just doubted that Chinese officials coveted Tibet for its “latitude” to launch rockets.
You’re joking, right? There is a substantial population of Tibetans in India – including the Dalai Lama – who practice their culture freely.
Latitude is important for rocket launches, but Tibet isn’t really south relative the rest of the country. China already has a launch facility at the latitude of it’s southern border, and Hainan is much farther south than that.
The history of Tibet independence is rather tricky. Tibet has been under Chinese scrutiny for a long time. China always reserved the right to approve of whomever was ruling Tibet and if the Chinese emperor asked the ruler of Tibet to come over for some tea, the ruler of Tibet would usually comply. And, you’re talking about a long period of time. At least 700 years. During that time, China’s influence in Tibet would wax and wane depending upon what was going on in China.
The problem is the term “independence” and what exactly it means. Before the 18th century, there was no real formal definition.
If we look at the world today, you can say that the U.S. has a lot of influence over Britain, but most people would consider Britain a completely independent country. Throughout most of history, the Emperor of China thought of Tibet as a piece of his domain and Tibet recognized itself as under the influence of China. Yet, there are times in that history where China had less influence on Tibet than the U.S. has over Britain. Did that make Tibet independent? When China regained its strength and reeled Tibet back into a tighter sphere of influence, did either the Emperor or the ruler of Tibet thought of Tibet as losing its ‘independence’?
Much of the debate comes from the rise in nationalism in the late 19th century and the idea of what a nation state should represent. In the 19th century, China was merely a personal possession of the Emperor and Tibet was part of his personal possessions. The concept of nationhood didn’t fully take place in that region until almost the 20th century. Unfortunately for China, they were under Japanese occupation (beginning with Port Arthur in 1895), European domination, warlord rule, and all out civil war between the Nationalists and Communists. Tibet asserted its independence as a separate nation in terms of a nation-state at the same time China was in chaos.
After the Communists stitched together much of the Eastern portion of their nation, they saw Tibet as merely another renegade province that needed to be brought under their enlightened and benign rule.
I guess the question is whether Tibet ever had any formal recognition as an independent nation before the Communists marched in, or whether other countries simply thought of Tibet as officially a part of China even though the government had no control over the area. (much like Somaliland and Puntland are thought of as a part of Somali even though Somali has had absolutely no influence over those areas for the past two decades).
Of course, most nations were busy in a little thing called World War II to really think about it back then.
It would be interesting to compare the history of Mongolia and Tibet. Both were under Chinese scrutiny. Both started exercising their independence about the same time, yet Mongolia became an independent country while Tibet remained part of China.
The 1914 Simla Accord with Britain states that Tibet was to be ruled from Lhasa but under Chinese Suzerainty, but that China wouldn’t interfere in it’s administration. Suzerainty as a concept doesn’t really exist anymore with respect to modern nations.