The Racist Chinese Occupation of Tibet

[TigerToMany]

The following artical is a timely reminder of the reality on the ground in Tibet. Nowadays there is a collective stifling and concealment of all the horrendous facts Chinese by our pusillanimous press and politicians.Right this very moment the Chinese are engaged in a particularly malicious and thoroughly racist drive to silence Tibetans and targeting all high profile Tibetans and framing them on trumped up charges. Very lengthy jail terms are being meted out to these hapless Tibetan victims and so their voices are silenced for a very long time, plus the horrendous fear and terror this instils on all other Tibetans.

It is truly unimaginable how live must be living in such constant fear and terror under an vile, illegal, racist regime bereft of anything resembling civil conduct or even humane traits.

http://one-just-world.blogspot.com/2010/07/han-chinese-racism-in-tibet.html

Ever since ancient times the Han people would view ‘border people’, and in fact all other races, as barbarians and see them as beasts beneath the noble, superior Han race. These ‘border people’ were referred to with the added characters of dog for the people of the north, a reptile for the Min and Man people and a sheep for the Qiang, etc. The Tibetans were referred to in various terms, including ‘fan’ or ‘barbarians’; ‘t’u-fan’ or ‘agricultural barbarians’, and ‘hsi-fan’ or ‘western barbarians’; an attitude which primarily shaped their conduct and interactions with these other races.

These racist attitudes harboured by the Han people is best expressed by Wang Fuzhi, a contemporary of the late Ming and early Qing dynasty, in the following missive:

“And the Barbarians you may exterminate them and it will not be cruel, you may loot and plunder their lands and it won’t be unfair and unjust, you may deceive them and defraud them and it won’t be unrighteous; because all these notions only apply to man of verbal intercourse, and do not apply to different species.”

In fact, first in late 1911 Mongolia, and then in 1912 Tibet had just reasserted their independence. This of course was a catalyst to change tack for the Han Chinese, who sought to dominate all the territories of their erstwhile overlords, the so much loathed and despised 'alien' Manchus, (and of course much more by additionally including Tibet).

This stroke of racist genius, by enunciating the ever latent hegemonistic aspiration of the Han race, more than anything else, unites the Communists of mainland China and the Nationalists of Taiwan today in celebrating him as the ‘father of modern China’, though he wasn’t even in the country for the best part of the revolution!

Thus, he is credited by both sides for laying the foundations to the greater Han Empire of today; though no consideration to any legitimacy is ever entertained, given the forcible and involuntary inclusion of the other Nationalities.
The fact that the Manchus were considered an ‘Alien, occupying race’ and had to be overthrown and expelled belies any notion that the Han Nation could ever claim legitimacy to all the Manchu Empire’s territories now occupied, let alone Tibet, which never was under Manchu control.

[Odin2005]

1. K&R

[ellisonz]

2. K & R

[Iyzovaan]

3. One-sided and uninformative

The article seems to want it both ways. On the one hand, it argues that Tibet was a historically independent country. In another place, it interestingly enough, in order to blame the modern-day Chinese government for the shortcomings of Tibet before 1959, had to concede that the Chinese did have some say in what went on in Tibet. At least, if what the author is saying is true, they had enough power to enact capital punishment and exert force over the legal system. But this admission is somewhat odd considering that people who support a Free Tibet are loathe to admit it, but now seem to be willing to do so, if they can blame China.

There are parts of the article that read as an anti-Chinese polemic, especially phrases like "The horrendous suffering will only end when the last Han Chinese has forcibly been evicted from Tibetan soil." I wonder how people on the forum would react if this article had been about Palestinians and it said, "The horrendous suffering of Palestinians will end when the last Israeli has been forcibly evicted from Arab soil," or something similar. Additionally, the claims of the Han Chinese ethnicity does not really existing; It reminds me rather of something by Noel Ignatiev, the professor who said that the white race needs to be abolished and similarly claimed that the whites don't really exist.

[TigerToMany]

4. I normally don't respond to this kind of garbage, but...

Since you decided to come in here and troll, I now have no choice but to make you look like the sad, ignorant person you are.

First, it's the chinese that want it both ways. On the one hand they claim to have ruled Tibet for millennia, but then vilify the peaceful, innocent Tibetans and blame all the barbarities they themselves carried out in Tibet during periods of military aggression. But of course if the stark facts and truth are uncomfortable to you, and your sympathies lie with a regime which knows no conscience nor civility, you’d be sure to try and make it look like it's the other way around. Military aggression has never legitimized any occupation or subjugation of a nation, but the Chinese would just have it that way in their distorted account of all historical facts.

As for this being "anti-chinese". In the chinese media there is nothing but hate-filled, racist polemics against the peace-loving Tibetans. The article is factual and there is nothing factual about facts. Even the one comment which you cherry-picked is only a remark in what is a very long, detailed, articulate, and well-thought out discussion. Also, the term "Han" is indeed a social one, much like the idea of "White". Genetically, there is no one "Han" ethnicity, and culturally and linguistically there is no one "Han" language or culture, just as there is no one "White" or "European" culture. However, there is strong evidence for the existence of the Tibetan ethnicity as a separate and distinct one from the Chinese.

And since you bring up Palestine: There has never been a "Palestinian" country in the modern, Arabic sense. The Romans called it Palestine, and anyone who lived in that region, Roman, Greek, Jewish, or Phonecian was called "Palestinian". There has never been a Palestinian language, never been a distinct Palestinian ethnicity, never been a Palestinian religion in any way distinct from Islam elsewhere. In contrast, Tibet's status as a historically independent nation has never been in dispute, they have their own language, and they have a unique religious persuasion.

Unfortunately for the CCP and its apologists, propaganda doesn't work on the educated, as you've just realized. The world will and must NOT forget Tibet.

[ellisonz]

6. I would agree that it's one-sided, uninformative is another question...

...to address the claim in your second paragraph which seems to be based on this assertion:

Footnote: i
■ The notion of “Han” is in itself an invention which based its justification on the concept of a common people opposed to Manchu rule, and included all the people of very different cultural, linguistic and ethnic background and were earlier part of the Ming Dynasty. The revolutionaries needed more than the term ‘yellow race’ which had wide currency at the time, and which of course by its very nature included the Manchu people. This term ‘yellow race’ was used widely in the nineteenth century in the extensive process of self-victimisation and self pitying, namely the yellow race being ‘oppressed’ by the white race, in the course of blaming all ills of the late Manchu empire on these external influences.

Zhang Bingling, who morphed from being a Reformist to a fervent Revolutionary, introduced the term ‘Hanzhong’, Han race, which based its foundation in common surnames carried by this ‘Han race’. Historian Sima Qian, who purportedly lived between 145 and 90 BC, provided a basis for this with his mythical account of Chinese history, which credits Huangdi, 黄帝, or Yellow Emperor as the founder of the Chinese nation, and bringing order and structured government to earth, plus inventing just about every aspect Chinese civilization.
He was credited with having some 25 children, but here the numbers vary, and different accounts claim varying numbers of progenies, and sons.

Zhang Bingling made the mythical figure of the Yellow Emperor, who supposedly lived between 2697 and 2597 BCE, the arch ancestor of all Han people, which was based on the common surnames from the descendants of Huangdi.

It served the revolutionaries of the latter part of the fading Qing Empire to unite the disparate people under Manchu rule and foment the antagonism and common purpose required to overthrow the Qing rulers. Today the notion of Han is deeply rooted in the psyche of the 'Chinese' and provides them with a sense of one race, one purpose and one nation. Though genetically, nor culturally or ethnically, the Han race does not exist, but the term is used here for the purpose of identifying the people for whom the label is relevant in the context, and who now identify themselves to be of the 'Han race'.

The idea of Han ethnicity is so dissolute in the sense of being a useful term for an ethnologist, that there are in fact identifiable subgroups among the Han Chinese:

The sub groups of the Han Chinese are based on linguistics, culture and region within mainland China. The terminology used in Mandarin to describe the groups is: "minxi" (Simplified Chinese: 民系, ethnic lineages) or "zuqun" (Simplified Chinese: 族群, ethnic groups).

Much more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Chinese_subgroups

Having read more than my fair share of Chinese history, and especially Chinese history before the Tang Dynasty, I don't think this characterization is that out of line. The term that was antecedent to the use of Han is Huaxia, a much smaller ethnic group, and not what we think of as Han today:

In the narrow, original sense, Huaxia refers to a group (or confederation of tribes) of ancient people living along the Yellow River who formed the nucleus of what later became the Han ethnic group in China. In this sense, the term referred to a specific ethno-cultural group (the Huaxia tribe or confederacy 華夏族 that was distinct from other groups, such as the Miao and the Dongyi, who have by modern times been to a greater or lesser degree assimilated into Chinese culture. However, since the Zhou Dynasty, with the spread of Han culture over most of China, the term gradually lost the original specific ethnic designation and came to be used as a generic term for the Chinese nation itself, as well as for Chinese culture in general (including that shared by the overseas Chinese). This transformation is explained by Confucius in Spring and Autumn Annals ("夷狄入華夏，則華夏之&quot 。[edit]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huaxia

Ancient China was a polyglot place with many number of ethnic groups migrating according to shifting political lines, and especially so in Spring and Autumn Period (722–476 BCE) and the
Warring States Period (475–221 BCE). Thus the claim made in the article is not that the Han did not exist, but that when we view them as being substantially more than a nationalist affiliation we do so at our own peril. Even today in the PRC, there is substantial ethnic diversity just below the surface:

The Han Chinese are the largest ethnic group, where some 91.59% [1] of the population was classified as Han Chinese (~1.2 billion). Besides the majority Han Chinese, 55 other ethnic groups are recognised in mainland China by the PRC government, numbering approximately 105 million people, mostly concentrated in the northwest, north, northeast, south, and southwest but with some in central interior areas.

The major minority ethnic groups are Zhuang (16.1 million), Manchu (10.6 million), Hui (9.8 million), Miao (8.9 million), Uyghur (8.3 million), Tujia (8 million), Yi (7.7 million), Mongol (5.8 million), Tibetan (5.4 million), Buyei (2.9 million), Dong (2.9 million), Yao (2.6 million), Korean (1.9 million), Bai (1.8 million), Hani (1.4 million), Kazakh (1.2 million), Li (1.2 million), and Dai (1.1 million).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_China

Having also read a little Noel Ignatiev, I think his point is that like the Han, the conception that we have of a White race, is a construction and based more in our sense of nationalism than in any ethnological reality that characterizes many of of the ethnic groups that have not extensively intermingled. Furthermore, when Ignatiev says he wants to abolish the White race he does not mean so in any sort of violent sense, but rather in the sociological:

We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noel_Ignatiev#.22New_Abolition.22_and_the_.22White_Race.22

I'm betting you didn't anticipate running into someone that is schooled in Western social sciences, Chinese history, and Noel Ignatiev. But your misrepresentation both of the argument presented in the article and of Noel Ignatiev belies the intellectual dishonesty of your first paragraph. I eagerly await any further discussion you may wish to have on this matter. But if you come to sow the seed of disunity among us in support of Tibet among the West, I think you will be sorely disappointed, outside of the few hardcore Marxists/Atheists on this board who harbor deep resentment towards the Tibetan cause for no reason other than hatred of religion and ignorance.

[TigerToMany]

7. +1

That was a very informative, reasonable, and intelligent rebuttal

[A777]

5. some good points but seems lacking in objectivity and contains "weasel words"

One thing about the history of Tibet isn't always clear cut as some the "Free Tibet" crowd wants to make it seem. Nobody denies that the last 50 years weren't perfect, but the Chinese-Tibetan political history goes back hundreds of years and is often quite nuanced. Even modern Chinese politics is forced to deal with history going back hundreds of years when going to Tibet, and draw on those precedents as Arjia Rinpoche points out in one lecture.

In order to understand the complexities of the current situation, we need to look at the historical and social perspectives that frame both sides. For instance, the notion that Tibet was never under the control of the Ching dynasty is not correct. In 1724, the Chinese took advantage of a secession crisis and installed resident governors, incorporating it into the Chinese nation. Subsequent maps, including ones made by Europeans, show Tibet as being a part of China.

[ellisonz]

8. That of course doesn't mean that Tibet wasn't independent...

Simply being occupied by a foreign invader does not compel international recognition of the legitimacy of military invasion. That would be like saying that Belgium, since it was invaded by modern Germany twice, does not have a legitimate right to its independence. One can know the history of Tibet and of China and still believe with valid reason that what the PRC is perpetuating in Tibet is an utter outrage, violation of international law, and unconscionable in its brutality. Shame on the PRC for its invasion and occupation of Tibet.

"China, especially Chinese-ruled Tibet is a very difficult place to live if you are a free thinker, if you are an artist, if you are a religious person," Gere told NDTV 24X7 news channel adding: "It would have to kill every Tibetan if it wants to change them."

"China wrongly gauges the Tibetan people, thinking it can subvert their deep religious beliefs and make them true Communists. It's never going to happen as their whole lives have revolved around Buddhism and around their teachers," said Gere.

------

"No matter how many roads or skyscrapers China builds or even if it brings six or seven million Han Chinese settlers to Tibet, it is not going to change," he said.

Terming Tibet to be "an occupied country," Gere said: "There's no one in the Tibetan movement that wants to destroy China or hurt the Chinese."

http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report_china-will-have-to-kill-every-tibetan-to-change-them-richard-gere_1636392

Mr. Gere is correct in his recent assessment. There is no hope for the PRC to achieve what it desires in Tibet. The PRC should leave Tibet and leave Tibet for Tibetans, rather than seeking to destroy their country through a campaign of ethnic cleansing. Shame on the PRC, and shame on those who make excuses for its wrongs.

[TigerToMany]

9. I'll also add

that if China wants to claim that they've "owned" Tibet since 1724 (which is actually not true anyways), then let them by all means do it. You can have all the "facts" you want. It doesn't change anything.

It just means that they've been occupying Tibet for several centuries instead of several decades. It doesn't change the fact that Tibet, as a nation, has the right to exist.

[TigerToMany]

10. revisionist drivel

One thing about the history of Tibet isn't always clear cut as some the "Free Tibet" crowd wants to make it seem.

That's like saying that the Holocaust isn't as clear cut as the survivors make it seem. Sure you might be able to pick away at minor details, but the fact is that people who indulge in these kind of revisionistic mental gymnastics almost always have an agenda. Deborah Lipstadt, a world-reknowned historian, said that the purpose of lying about the Holocaust is to legitimize Nazism. In the case of the Tibet revisionists and deniers, it's to deny the Tibetans a homeland and to legitimize the occupation of their country.

All reliable sources which aren't tainted by Chinese bias, either on the internet or elsewhere seem to think that Tibet was fully independent before the Chinese invaded. It is only the Chinese, and their lobbyists (as well as those posting on their behalf on internet forums), who have decided otherwise.