I can hardly believe it but this will more than likely be my last post in this setting. Unbelievable, it seems like it was yesterday when we began this class and I was dreading this whole blogging experience. Today, I am about to put the finishing touches on my efforts of the last 6 weeks. Wow!
The point of this entry is to summarize my experience with blogging. As I sat here for a few moments thinking about how to describe it, two words immediately came to mind, great experience! This class has helped me in two main areas, well maybe three. The first two are pretty obvious. I have become a bit more comfortable with computers since so much of this class was conducted using a computer. The second is that I may have improved upon and refined my writing skills, but I'll leave that determination to other people.
Being a history buff, the biggest takeaway for me was learning more about Tibet. I don't think that I have reached the expert level but I sure do know a lot more today than when I first started. I have a greater understanding of what the Tibetan people have been through and I can understand why they reacted as they have in recent weeks. Decades of pent up discontent have spilled over onto the world stage as China prepares to host the Olympics. Like it or not, the Olympics have become a vehicle for the Tibetan people to get their story out front and center stage for all the world to see.
I actually posted a comment in my blogging community during this class. From reading my blog you can tell that I am firmly in the pro-Tibet camp and when I posted my comment, I got more than a few comments directed at me. Some were pretty tame but there were a few that were downright nasty. To use a term that I learned in this class, I was "flamed"! That was an interesting experience.
I am pleased to say that as I am finishing up on this assignment, I have learned that the Chinese government is now willing to talk to representatives of the Dalai Lama. What a great way to end this blog!
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Chinese rule of Tibet: Beneficial or not?
On this point we find the two sides are once again on the opposite end of the spectrum. Pro-Tibet supporters claim that Chinese rule has been brutal and oppressive in virtually every area possible. Pro-China supporters will tell you that the Chinese liberated the Tibetans from a cruel feudal system under which the Tibetan peasants were exploited by their greedy landlords.
It is true that Tibetan society was operating under a feudal type system prior to the Chinese Communist invasion of 1950. It is true that there were some monks and landlords who abused and took advantage of the Tibetan people. It is therefore also true that there were abusive practices in the religious establishment and in the land management arena. There were also some abusive government officials. However, it should be noted that the 13th Dalai Lama had begun reforms aimed at eradicating these abuses but unfortunately he died before he was able to finish the job. By the time of the Chinese invasion of 1950, the 14th Dalai Lama was still very young and unable to rule in his own right.
So, the Chinese did in fact rid Tibet of the old feudal system. But was the Communist system that replaced the old Tibetan system any better? Or was it worse? I would have to say worse. Prior to the invasion of 1950 I have seen no evidence of any popular uprisings against the Tibetan government or religious establishment. However, since the Chinese took over there have been three such uprisings, in 1959, 1989 and again in 2008. Many Tibetans have fled into exile to escape Chinese Communist rule, again I have found no evidence of this under the Tibetan regime. I have found evidence of human rights abuses under the Communist Chinese government, for more information please visit the UN website at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/50/PDF/G0611750.pdf?OpenElement
Additionally, in a report on Tibet dated 24 July 1959, The International Commission of Jurists even went so far as to raise the question of genocide. For more information on this please visit the ICJ website at: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3430&lang=en If this is not enough evidence, then all one has to do is look into the recent unrest in Tibet to see that something there is not right.
Leaving the Human Rights arena, we have to look at the question of Chinese monetary investment in Tibet. Pro-China supporters will point to the many improvements the Chinese government has made in Tibet, such as roads and railroads. While they have actually made such improvements, the reason why is in question. Was it to benefit the Tibetan people or was it to benefit China? Please refer to my post entitled "The Communist invasion of Tibet" for more information. Based on what I have read it appears that it was for the benefit of China first and then if it also benefited the Tibetans eventually then that was OK too.
In summary, although the Chinese Communists did free the Tibetans from the feudal system they lived under previously, the communist system that replaced it turned out to be worse. Plainly put, Communist rule of Tibet has not been beneficial for the Tibetans.
It is true that Tibetan society was operating under a feudal type system prior to the Chinese Communist invasion of 1950. It is true that there were some monks and landlords who abused and took advantage of the Tibetan people. It is therefore also true that there were abusive practices in the religious establishment and in the land management arena. There were also some abusive government officials. However, it should be noted that the 13th Dalai Lama had begun reforms aimed at eradicating these abuses but unfortunately he died before he was able to finish the job. By the time of the Chinese invasion of 1950, the 14th Dalai Lama was still very young and unable to rule in his own right.
So, the Chinese did in fact rid Tibet of the old feudal system. But was the Communist system that replaced the old Tibetan system any better? Or was it worse? I would have to say worse. Prior to the invasion of 1950 I have seen no evidence of any popular uprisings against the Tibetan government or religious establishment. However, since the Chinese took over there have been three such uprisings, in 1959, 1989 and again in 2008. Many Tibetans have fled into exile to escape Chinese Communist rule, again I have found no evidence of this under the Tibetan regime. I have found evidence of human rights abuses under the Communist Chinese government, for more information please visit the UN website at: http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G06/117/50/PDF/G0611750.pdf?OpenElement
Additionally, in a report on Tibet dated 24 July 1959, The International Commission of Jurists even went so far as to raise the question of genocide. For more information on this please visit the ICJ website at: http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=3430&lang=en If this is not enough evidence, then all one has to do is look into the recent unrest in Tibet to see that something there is not right.
Leaving the Human Rights arena, we have to look at the question of Chinese monetary investment in Tibet. Pro-China supporters will point to the many improvements the Chinese government has made in Tibet, such as roads and railroads. While they have actually made such improvements, the reason why is in question. Was it to benefit the Tibetan people or was it to benefit China? Please refer to my post entitled "The Communist invasion of Tibet" for more information. Based on what I have read it appears that it was for the benefit of China first and then if it also benefited the Tibetans eventually then that was OK too.
In summary, although the Chinese Communists did free the Tibetans from the feudal system they lived under previously, the communist system that replaced it turned out to be worse. Plainly put, Communist rule of Tibet has not been beneficial for the Tibetans.
Tibet: Always a part of China?
Pro-China supporters have maintained for quite some time now that Tibet is, was and ALWAYS has been a part of China. They make the assertion that since Tibet has always been a part of China, the recent unrest there is merely an internal issue for China alone to handle. There are many, many people who hold this belief and it transcends national boundaries and ethnicity. However, my research has lead me to believe that this is just not true.
Before I get started with this point, I have to beg forgiveness now. In dealing with this argument, I feel it is absolutely necessary to introduce evidence other than my own opinions to support my position. But hey, the two posts previous to this one contained no sources other than my own so hopefully I'll be forgiven here... Now that I have asked for forgiveness in advance, have a seat, buckle up and let's get started!
The statement that Tibet is, was and always has been a part of China is only partially true. The part that is false is the claim that Tibet has ALWAYS been a part of China. Tibet has NOT always been a part of China. Mary Craig tells us that the Tibetans are not related to the Chinese in racial origins or language, that in itself is an indicator of separateness. In the opening chapters of his book "The Historical Status of Tibet", Mr. Tieh-Tseng Li treats Tibet and China as two independent nations. More evidence is found in the first chapter of Mary Craig's book "Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet". On the very first page of this chapter we find the following:
China and Tibet shall abide by the frontiers of which they are now in occupation. All to the east is the country of Great China; and all to the west is, without question, the country of Great Tibet. Henceforth on neither side shall there be waging of war nor seizing of territory... Between the countries no smoke nor dust shall be seen. There shall be no sudden alarms and the very word "enemy" shall not be spoken... All shall live in peace and share the blessing of happiness for ten thousand years. (23)
The above quote from Mary Craig's book is part of a treaty that was signed by the kings of China and Tibet in AD 821/822. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tibet has NOT ALWAYS been a part of China.
However, Tibet was firmly within the Chinese sphere of influence from the early 1700s on but this was more of an autonomous arrangement than anything else. There were Chinese government officials resident in Tibet but for the most part the Tibetans were in charge of their own affairs as long as Manchu power was respected. This continued until the Manchu dynasty was overthrown in 1911. After the revolution in Beijing, Tibet was free from Chinese interference and operated independently from 1912 until 1950. Again, this shows that Tibet has NOT ALWAYS been a part of China.
Sadly for the Tibetans, Tibet is now a part of China. On a brighter note, when I logged on to the Internet this morning I saw an article that said the Chinese government is now willing to hold talks with the Dalai Lama's representatives. So, perhaps there is hope. Although I do not see independence for Tibet on the horizon, perhaps real autonomy may be granted. Genuine autonomy would be a great start but it must be followed with a reversal of the effects of decades of oppressive Chinese government policies and actions.
References:
Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet. Washington DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Before I get started with this point, I have to beg forgiveness now. In dealing with this argument, I feel it is absolutely necessary to introduce evidence other than my own opinions to support my position. But hey, the two posts previous to this one contained no sources other than my own so hopefully I'll be forgiven here... Now that I have asked for forgiveness in advance, have a seat, buckle up and let's get started!
The statement that Tibet is, was and always has been a part of China is only partially true. The part that is false is the claim that Tibet has ALWAYS been a part of China. Tibet has NOT always been a part of China. Mary Craig tells us that the Tibetans are not related to the Chinese in racial origins or language, that in itself is an indicator of separateness. In the opening chapters of his book "The Historical Status of Tibet", Mr. Tieh-Tseng Li treats Tibet and China as two independent nations. More evidence is found in the first chapter of Mary Craig's book "Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet". On the very first page of this chapter we find the following:
China and Tibet shall abide by the frontiers of which they are now in occupation. All to the east is the country of Great China; and all to the west is, without question, the country of Great Tibet. Henceforth on neither side shall there be waging of war nor seizing of territory... Between the countries no smoke nor dust shall be seen. There shall be no sudden alarms and the very word "enemy" shall not be spoken... All shall live in peace and share the blessing of happiness for ten thousand years. (23)
The above quote from Mary Craig's book is part of a treaty that was signed by the kings of China and Tibet in AD 821/822. This proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Tibet has NOT ALWAYS been a part of China.
However, Tibet was firmly within the Chinese sphere of influence from the early 1700s on but this was more of an autonomous arrangement than anything else. There were Chinese government officials resident in Tibet but for the most part the Tibetans were in charge of their own affairs as long as Manchu power was respected. This continued until the Manchu dynasty was overthrown in 1911. After the revolution in Beijing, Tibet was free from Chinese interference and operated independently from 1912 until 1950. Again, this shows that Tibet has NOT ALWAYS been a part of China.
Sadly for the Tibetans, Tibet is now a part of China. On a brighter note, when I logged on to the Internet this morning I saw an article that said the Chinese government is now willing to hold talks with the Dalai Lama's representatives. So, perhaps there is hope. Although I do not see independence for Tibet on the horizon, perhaps real autonomy may be granted. Genuine autonomy would be a great start but it must be followed with a reversal of the effects of decades of oppressive Chinese government policies and actions.
References:
Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet. Washington DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Continuing on...
Thursday night we had a discussion on blogs and how sometimes groups form on both sides of the issue being discussed. Inevitably there are those that support the issue and on the other side of the fence, there are those that oppose it. When that issue is one that brings out strong emotions in people, the discussions usually become passionate and heated. Sometimes the discussions get downright nasty and hateful with attacks being directed at people who hold opposing viewpoints. People are often ganged up on, a practice know as "flaming". I have seen this in blogs and I have experienced it myself. I must say that for a first timer, it can be a bit unsettling.
The topic that I have chosen to write about is one of those issues that brings out strong emotions in people. There seems to be little or no middle ground, you are either pro-Tibet or pro-China. On the blogs that I have read, there seems to be about an equal number supporting either side. However, in the actual street demonstrations this may not always be true. In some of the accounts I have read, the pro-China side has outnumbered the pro-Tibet side. However, the fact that pro-China demonstrators have outnumbered pro-Tibet demonstrators should not come as a surprise to anyone given the the size of the Chinese population.
Switching back to the blogs, although there are many thoughts and opinions presented, I would like to focus my attention on the arguments that I most frequently encountered. There are several of these and I would like to list them and then discuss them briefly. The pro-Tibet side usually puts forth the following arguments: First, China illegally invaded a free and independent nation. Second, Chinese rule has been oppressive and has sought to stamp out Tibetan culture and religion. And finally, Chinese rule has brought much destruction to Tibet. To counter these arguments, the pro-China side offers the following: First, Tibet is, was and has always been a part of China. Second, the Chinese liberated the Tibetans from an oppressive feudalistic society. Lastly, China has done much to improve life in Tibet by investing heavily in things like roads and railroads to name but a few.
That brings this session to a close. In my next blogs, I will discuss the arguments presented above. I hope that you will return and give my next offerings some of your attention.
The topic that I have chosen to write about is one of those issues that brings out strong emotions in people. There seems to be little or no middle ground, you are either pro-Tibet or pro-China. On the blogs that I have read, there seems to be about an equal number supporting either side. However, in the actual street demonstrations this may not always be true. In some of the accounts I have read, the pro-China side has outnumbered the pro-Tibet side. However, the fact that pro-China demonstrators have outnumbered pro-Tibet demonstrators should not come as a surprise to anyone given the the size of the Chinese population.
Switching back to the blogs, although there are many thoughts and opinions presented, I would like to focus my attention on the arguments that I most frequently encountered. There are several of these and I would like to list them and then discuss them briefly. The pro-Tibet side usually puts forth the following arguments: First, China illegally invaded a free and independent nation. Second, Chinese rule has been oppressive and has sought to stamp out Tibetan culture and religion. And finally, Chinese rule has brought much destruction to Tibet. To counter these arguments, the pro-China side offers the following: First, Tibet is, was and has always been a part of China. Second, the Chinese liberated the Tibetans from an oppressive feudalistic society. Lastly, China has done much to improve life in Tibet by investing heavily in things like roads and railroads to name but a few.
That brings this session to a close. In my next blogs, I will discuss the arguments presented above. I hope that you will return and give my next offerings some of your attention.
Friday, April 25, 2008
I wrote about that so I could write about this...
Greetings one and all. In my previous posts I talked about Tibetan history from the earliest times up until the Communist invasion and annexation of that independent country. And yes, I said it, Tibet was in fact, a free and independent country from 1912 until the time of the Chinese invasion of 1950. Once again. in order to understand and speak intelligently about the present, one must understand and have a knowledge of the past. So, I told you all of that so I could tell you all of this...
As I have shown, Tibet was independent until conquered by the Mongol's in the 13th century. In the early 1700s, Mongol power was broken by the Manchus and it was then that Tibet came under Chinese control. Tibet remained under Manchu dominance until the early part of the 2oth century when revolution in Beijing brought the Manchu dynasty down. The Republic of China still claimed Tibet to be a part of China but was unable to enforce that claim. Seizing the opportunity, Tibet declared her independence. Due to the difficulties that the Nationalist Chinese Government faced, Tibet was able to remain free until 1950. The Communists invaded in that year and embarked on a path to make Tibet and it's people Chinese. Those are the facts.
Now for my opinion...
For all of our lives (those of us presently in Engl 112) Tibet has been a part of China. Apart from that fact, most of us knew little about Tibet. But suddenly Tibet has been thrust into the spotlight, a main character on the world stage. Why is that? With China hosting the Olympics, many Tibetans recognized that the time was right for them to put their case in front of the whole world. So, starting March 10th, the demonstrations began. First in Tibet and then in neighboring provinces with large Tibetan populations. After that, the demonstrations followed the Olympic torch to other countries as well. We saw demonstrations in Paris, London and San Francisco. There were demonstrations and protests in other cities around the world in addition to those that hosted the torch. Why is all of this happening?
All of this is happening because the Communist government of China invaded and annexed Tibet. China has oppressed the Tibetan people and has suppressed Tibetan culture. They have taken Tibetan resources and have settled many ethnic Chinese in Tibet in an effort to maintain their hold on the country. Today, as in 1959 and 1989, the Tibetan people have had enough. They have risen up in defiance of Chinese rule. And, with the world's attention focused on China and the Olympics, the time is right to draw attention to Tibet's plight.
As I have shown, Tibet was independent until conquered by the Mongol's in the 13th century. In the early 1700s, Mongol power was broken by the Manchus and it was then that Tibet came under Chinese control. Tibet remained under Manchu dominance until the early part of the 2oth century when revolution in Beijing brought the Manchu dynasty down. The Republic of China still claimed Tibet to be a part of China but was unable to enforce that claim. Seizing the opportunity, Tibet declared her independence. Due to the difficulties that the Nationalist Chinese Government faced, Tibet was able to remain free until 1950. The Communists invaded in that year and embarked on a path to make Tibet and it's people Chinese. Those are the facts.
Now for my opinion...
For all of our lives (those of us presently in Engl 112) Tibet has been a part of China. Apart from that fact, most of us knew little about Tibet. But suddenly Tibet has been thrust into the spotlight, a main character on the world stage. Why is that? With China hosting the Olympics, many Tibetans recognized that the time was right for them to put their case in front of the whole world. So, starting March 10th, the demonstrations began. First in Tibet and then in neighboring provinces with large Tibetan populations. After that, the demonstrations followed the Olympic torch to other countries as well. We saw demonstrations in Paris, London and San Francisco. There were demonstrations and protests in other cities around the world in addition to those that hosted the torch. Why is all of this happening?
All of this is happening because the Communist government of China invaded and annexed Tibet. China has oppressed the Tibetan people and has suppressed Tibetan culture. They have taken Tibetan resources and have settled many ethnic Chinese in Tibet in an effort to maintain their hold on the country. Today, as in 1959 and 1989, the Tibetan people have had enough. They have risen up in defiance of Chinese rule. And, with the world's attention focused on China and the Olympics, the time is right to draw attention to Tibet's plight.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Pondering the "dreaded" Analysis Paper
Ah yes, the "dreaded" analysis paper... And while I'm at it, the "dreaded" blog post about the "dreaded" analysis paper... I'm sitting here with a touch of writer's block, if I rate to use that phrase when referring to myself, an obvious amateur. Writing about potential sources for my paper should be a simple thing to do but for some reason I'm having a hard time getting started. UUUGGGHHH!!! I know, I know, it's a small price to pay and the rewards are great so I'll quit complaining and get to it.
Since I started this project some weeks ago I have been doing quite a bit of reading, both on the internet news sites and from two books that I checked out of the library. The books have helped me tremendously with gaining an historical understanding of Tibet and it's relationship with China. The internet news sites have helped provide me with an abundance of data about the current events there, soon I will put that information to work.
For the analysis paper I will be using the World Blog on MSNBC.com as my primary source. I stumbled onto this site at the begining of the class and it has been a great source of information. I have found the articles posted there to be clear, concise and to the point. Also of great benefit is the fact that the stories on the Tibet of today have gotten loads of comments from readers on both sides of the issue. Another reason is that since I have used this site many times, I can get to it quite easily now, and that's an obvious plus for a guy who's computer skills are somewhat lacking.
Another source that I plan on using is Time.com. I've taken a peek or three at it in the computer lab during class. It also has some good articles posted on it that have gotten some good comments, again from both sides. In the event that neither of these sites work I'll go surfing...
Since I started this project some weeks ago I have been doing quite a bit of reading, both on the internet news sites and from two books that I checked out of the library. The books have helped me tremendously with gaining an historical understanding of Tibet and it's relationship with China. The internet news sites have helped provide me with an abundance of data about the current events there, soon I will put that information to work.
For the analysis paper I will be using the World Blog on MSNBC.com as my primary source. I stumbled onto this site at the begining of the class and it has been a great source of information. I have found the articles posted there to be clear, concise and to the point. Also of great benefit is the fact that the stories on the Tibet of today have gotten loads of comments from readers on both sides of the issue. Another reason is that since I have used this site many times, I can get to it quite easily now, and that's an obvious plus for a guy who's computer skills are somewhat lacking.
Another source that I plan on using is Time.com. I've taken a peek or three at it in the computer lab during class. It also has some good articles posted on it that have gotten some good comments, again from both sides. In the event that neither of these sites work I'll go surfing...
Saturday, April 19, 2008
The Communist invasion of Tibet
Before we move forward, I'd like to briefly summarize some important points from my last piece which brought us into the first half of the 20th century. The early 1900s saw Tibet as a pawn in a developing struggle for power and influence between Great Britain, Tsarist Russia and China. The British moved quickly when they became convinced that Russia was about to establish her influence in Tibet and in 1904, they invaded and signed a trade agreement with the Tibetan authorities. After the agreement was signed, the British withdrew. In anger over the British actions in Tibet, the Chinese invaded in 1905 and by 1910 had sacked Lhasa. In 1911 revolution in Beijing saved Tibet from further bloodshed at the hands of the Chinese. A combination of Tibetan efforts and Chinese infighting forced the withdrawal of Chinese troops and Tibet declared her independence. Tragically, there was no official recognition of Tibet's independence anywhere in the world. However, due to internal problems facing the new Nationalist government of China, Tibet was able to maintain her independence until 1950.
It was in this period that the 13th Dalai Lama recognized that he had to modernize Tibet as quickly as possible if he was to keep Tibet free from foreign domination. He set out to tackle corruption in the government and in the religious establishment. He also made moves to steer the country away from it's feudal past. He made many other attempts at modernization, however, not without opposition from some in the upper echelons of Tibetan society. Sadly for Tibet, he died before he as able to bring the country out of the past and into the 20th century. After his death in 1933, his reforms stalled and the old ways continued.
In October of 1949, the Communists came to power in China. One year later on 7 October 1950, Chairman Mao sent the People's Liberation Army into Tibet to restore Chinese rule there. There were several reasons given by the Communists for the invasion, the first, broadcast by Radio Beijing, was that it was undertaken to "free three million Tibetans from imperialist oppression and to consolidate national defenses on the western borders of China" (qtd in Craig 50). Another was that they were invading to free the Tibetan people from the oppression of their Tibetan landlords who operated under a feudal system. A third was that they intended to modernize Tibet and to reunite it with the Motherland. Although they had many reasons with which to justify their actions, the fact remains that they used overwhelming military force to impose their will on a country that had operated independently since 1912.
After the invasion in 1950, the new Dalai Lama was only a boy of 15 years. However, due to the conditions in which Tibet found herself, the Dalai Lama was forced into the role of leadership of his country. The details of the invasion and its aftermath are long and extensive and I will not get into all of them here. For brevity's sake I will try my best to provide an accurate summary. The invasion was brutal and the Chinese ruthlessly stamped out any resistance. There were many Tibetan lives lost and much destruction. After the initial chaos of the invasion, the Chinese set about accomplishing the goals stated earlier. Mary Craig tells us that initially they tried to handle things in the following manner:
For the first year or so, the Chinese trod carefully, courting the landlords and chiefs, hinting at the possibility of independence if they would co-operate. Mao knew that communism had few natural friends in Tibet and that a softly-softly approach was needed. He urged caution on the soldiers, restraint and courtesy towards their Tibetan "brothers" in order to win them over. Besides, until the roads to Lhasa from China could be built, the PLA were unable to bring their tanks and armored cars into Tibet; for the moment, therefore, it was imperative to maintain good relations with their hosts. (62)
Once the communists felt their position was safe, they began to employ more ruthless methods to impose their ideology and way of life on the Tibetans. Human rights abuses of all kinds abounded. Imprisonment and torture were widespread. Forced indoctrination was instituted in order to bring the young up as good communists and the adults were subjected to re-education. Many Tibetans lost their lives and many more fled into exile. The communist government flooded Tibet with Chinese settlers. The Tibetans rebelled against the communists and were crushed in 1959, this resulted in the Dalai Lama being smuggled out of the country to safety in India. In the end, the communists proved to be far worse than the Tibetan government they toppled. As Mary Craig puts it, "The liberators stood revealed as oppressors" (68).
References:
Craig , Mary. Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Photos courtesy of: Wikipedia
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Why I write as I do...
I must say that I have enjoyed this class so far and actually look forward to making blog entries. And, after each post I make I look forward to reading the comments of my peers. I want to know their thoughts on my subject and also to try and use any suggestions that may be given. One thing that has been mentioned on more than one occasion is the word "history". I would like to take a few moments to explain my intent in providing a brief summary of Tibet's past. I know that this entry is not required but I figured, what the heck, this is after all a writing class so why not?
I have been an amateur student of history for as long as I can remember. Back in grade school I was the kid always reading the history books on a regular basis. Oftentimes I would just pick up an encyclopedia and start reading it, just because I enjoyed it. When one studies history, one inevitably engages in discussions and even debates on events that have occurred in the past. Sometimes these discussions are pleasant and polite, merely an exchange of thoughts and ideas on why things happened as they did. However, pleasant exchanges do not always occur.
As we all know, we humans have not always treated one another in the way we would like to be treated. In other words, we have not "Done unto others as we would have done unto us". We have been cruel and violent. We have waged wars to take possession of each other's belongings. We have fought wars just to ensure our dominance over other peoples. We have fought wars of conquest abroad just to gain political power at home. There have been wars motivated by religious beliefs. And, much to our discredit, there have been occasions where we have actively sought to annihilate each other. When we choose to discuss subjects of this nature, it is imperative that we know what we are talking about.
Let's face it, Tibet is a subject that not many people here in the United States have knowledge of. Realizing this, I decided that the best way to tackle this issue was to start at the beginning and work my way to the present. If we want to speak intelligently about the present goings on in Tibet and around the world, we must have some knowledge of the past.
Most people would agree that the subject of Tibet is an emotionally charged issue. To see this one only has to watch the news on TV or read the news articles or blogs written about it. If we allow that emotion to be coupled with ignorance, we are courting disaster. As I have chosen to write about an issue that can be accurately described as a powder keg, I felt it was the responsible thing to do in providing some historical background before discussing the present events.
I have been an amateur student of history for as long as I can remember. Back in grade school I was the kid always reading the history books on a regular basis. Oftentimes I would just pick up an encyclopedia and start reading it, just because I enjoyed it. When one studies history, one inevitably engages in discussions and even debates on events that have occurred in the past. Sometimes these discussions are pleasant and polite, merely an exchange of thoughts and ideas on why things happened as they did. However, pleasant exchanges do not always occur.
As we all know, we humans have not always treated one another in the way we would like to be treated. In other words, we have not "Done unto others as we would have done unto us". We have been cruel and violent. We have waged wars to take possession of each other's belongings. We have fought wars just to ensure our dominance over other peoples. We have fought wars of conquest abroad just to gain political power at home. There have been wars motivated by religious beliefs. And, much to our discredit, there have been occasions where we have actively sought to annihilate each other. When we choose to discuss subjects of this nature, it is imperative that we know what we are talking about.
Let's face it, Tibet is a subject that not many people here in the United States have knowledge of. Realizing this, I decided that the best way to tackle this issue was to start at the beginning and work my way to the present. If we want to speak intelligently about the present goings on in Tibet and around the world, we must have some knowledge of the past.
Most people would agree that the subject of Tibet is an emotionally charged issue. To see this one only has to watch the news on TV or read the news articles or blogs written about it. If we allow that emotion to be coupled with ignorance, we are courting disaster. As I have chosen to write about an issue that can be accurately described as a powder keg, I felt it was the responsible thing to do in providing some historical background before discussing the present events.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Tibet: From the 18th to the early 20th century.
Now I realize I said that I would move quickly through events leading up to the present. But looking back on some of my previous postings I see that I have been a bit long winded. So, I promise to make an effort to be brief in discussing the next phase of relations between Tibet and China. Let's begin, shall we?
After the Manchus had succeeded in driving the Mongols from Tibet, they focused their efforts in a few main areas. The first was to ensure that the country was peaceful and orderly. As can be expected, there were ups and downs in this effort but overall the Manchus were successful in maintaining order. The second was to ensure that there was no outside interference in Tibet, especially from the Dzungars, the powerful Mongol tribe whom the Manchus had only recently driven from Tibet. Mary Craig describes it this way, "Between 1720 and 1792, the Manchus did in fact defend Tibet against incursions by both Mongols and Gurkhas; but although the emperors appointed two representatives (ambans) in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, they did not incorporate Tibet into their empire" (34). Simply put, Tibet under the Manchus was for the most part left alone as long as it was peaceful and and secure in the Manchu sphere of influence. The Scottish diplomat George Bogle summed it up this way, "The Chinese in general are confined to the capital, no tribute is exacted, and the people of Tibet, except at Lhasa, hardly feel the weight of a foreign yoke" (qtd in Li 51).
The 19th century saw new players arrive on the scene, namely Great Britain and Tsarist Russia. Each was actively expanding their empires at the expense of other peoples, and once again, the Tibetans found themselves in the middle of a foreign power struggle. The British had added India to their empire and the Russians were moving across central Asia. Fearing that Russia would establish influence in Tibet, the British invaded in 1904 and occupied Tibet for a brief time. After signing a trade agreement with Tibet at Lhasa, the British withdrew. The actions of the British angered the Chinese government who invaded Tibet in 1909 and in 1910 they took Lhasa.
Fortunately for Tibet, a revolution in Beijing erupted in 1911 and the Manchu government was overthrown by Dr. Sun Yat-sen. As China was experiencing difficulties after the revolution, Tibet took advantage and declared her independence. Unfortunately, the new Chinese government refused to acknowledge Tibet's proclamation. Worse still, no other government anywhere in the world would recognize Tibet as an independent country.
Tibet did however enjoy a period of independence from China for about 38 years. This is not to say that the Nationalist government willingly allowed Tibetan independence, for they still claimed to be the rightful rulers of Tibet. The only reason for this was the fact that China had become embroiled in a civil war between the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Tse-tung. So long as China was in turmoil, Tibet was free. As we shall see though, when the Chinese issue had been settled, the Tibetan issue would be addressed next.
We've almost arrived in the present and next on the agenda is Tibet under the People's Republic of China.
References:
Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood, A Cry for Tibet.. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
After the Manchus had succeeded in driving the Mongols from Tibet, they focused their efforts in a few main areas. The first was to ensure that the country was peaceful and orderly. As can be expected, there were ups and downs in this effort but overall the Manchus were successful in maintaining order. The second was to ensure that there was no outside interference in Tibet, especially from the Dzungars, the powerful Mongol tribe whom the Manchus had only recently driven from Tibet. Mary Craig describes it this way, "Between 1720 and 1792, the Manchus did in fact defend Tibet against incursions by both Mongols and Gurkhas; but although the emperors appointed two representatives (ambans) in the Tibetan capital of Lhasa, they did not incorporate Tibet into their empire" (34). Simply put, Tibet under the Manchus was for the most part left alone as long as it was peaceful and and secure in the Manchu sphere of influence. The Scottish diplomat George Bogle summed it up this way, "The Chinese in general are confined to the capital, no tribute is exacted, and the people of Tibet, except at Lhasa, hardly feel the weight of a foreign yoke" (qtd in Li 51).
The 19th century saw new players arrive on the scene, namely Great Britain and Tsarist Russia. Each was actively expanding their empires at the expense of other peoples, and once again, the Tibetans found themselves in the middle of a foreign power struggle. The British had added India to their empire and the Russians were moving across central Asia. Fearing that Russia would establish influence in Tibet, the British invaded in 1904 and occupied Tibet for a brief time. After signing a trade agreement with Tibet at Lhasa, the British withdrew. The actions of the British angered the Chinese government who invaded Tibet in 1909 and in 1910 they took Lhasa.
Fortunately for Tibet, a revolution in Beijing erupted in 1911 and the Manchu government was overthrown by Dr. Sun Yat-sen. As China was experiencing difficulties after the revolution, Tibet took advantage and declared her independence. Unfortunately, the new Chinese government refused to acknowledge Tibet's proclamation. Worse still, no other government anywhere in the world would recognize Tibet as an independent country.
Tibet did however enjoy a period of independence from China for about 38 years. This is not to say that the Nationalist government willingly allowed Tibetan independence, for they still claimed to be the rightful rulers of Tibet. The only reason for this was the fact that China had become embroiled in a civil war between the Nationalists under Chiang Kai-shek and the Communists under Mao Tse-tung. So long as China was in turmoil, Tibet was free. As we shall see though, when the Chinese issue had been settled, the Tibetan issue would be addressed next.
We've almost arrived in the present and next on the agenda is Tibet under the People's Republic of China.
References:
Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood, A Cry for Tibet.. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Tibet: Caught in the middle
As I stated in one of my earlier blog entries, my plan is to move rapidly through time to get to the present events in Tibet. I must say that it's fortunate that I decided to "hit the wave tops" because the histories of both Tibet and China are both very extensive. If I tried to to cover the histories of both countries in this format I would not be able to do them justice. With that said, it's time to get started on the next phase of the journey.
My last entry concluded with the Mongols running roughshod over Tibet and China. For more information about the Mongols visit the Columbia University website. The Mongols accomplished an amazing feat with their conquests but the size of their empire is not the focus here. What is important for our purposes is the fact that by the 13th century, they dominated both Tibet and China. In Tibet they were firmly in control but for the most part they left the Tibetans to their own devices as long as Mongol authority was not challenged. For example as I mentioned earlier, the Buddhist faith grew and spread, even into Mongolia itself. The Mongols may have even helped with this at times. In the prologue to her book "Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet" Mary Craig describes the situation under both the Mongols and later the Manchus as "benign, remote and caused barely a ripple on the unchanging surface of Tibetan life" (18). I'll address the Manchus later but for now what is important is that although the Tibetan people were no longer independent, their way of life seems to have changed very little under Mongol rule. It may even be safe to say that if not for outside interference, the Tibetans may have stayed under Mongol rule indefinitely.
The situation in China was a bit different. The Manchus were on the rise and by 1624 were engaging and defeating the Mongols in battle. In 1632 they had, "succeeded in wringing from China official recognition of Manchu superiority over the Mongols in rank" (Li 33). By 1633 they were on the march southwards and had all the Mongols in eastern China either submitting or fleeing. Soon China would be under Manchu domination with only Mongols to the north and west remaining as a threat. Eventually, China under the Manchus would turn her attention to the west, and Tibet.
As China turned her attention to the west I think it is important to remember that the Chinese goal here did not seem to be domination of Tibet and her people, but rather the elimination of the Mongol threat. We should remember that China had just liberated herself from Mongol occupation, however, the Mongols were still a formidable force and still in control of Tibet. Also of concern to China was the possibility of a "Mongol Empire including Tibet under a common religion..." (Li 39). In 1718 the Chinese Emperor took action and the Tibetans found themselves in the middle of a struggle for supremacy between the Manchus and the Mongols. This power struggle culminated in victory for the Manchus in 1720. It was then that a Manchu army allied with a Tibetan army drove the Mongols from Tibet. This effectively ended Mongol domination of Tibet and ushered in a new period of Manchu domination.
In my next installment I will discuss Tibet under Chinese domination until the early 20th century.
References:
Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood A Cry for Tibet. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
My last entry concluded with the Mongols running roughshod over Tibet and China. For more information about the Mongols visit the Columbia University website. The Mongols accomplished an amazing feat with their conquests but the size of their empire is not the focus here. What is important for our purposes is the fact that by the 13th century, they dominated both Tibet and China. In Tibet they were firmly in control but for the most part they left the Tibetans to their own devices as long as Mongol authority was not challenged. For example as I mentioned earlier, the Buddhist faith grew and spread, even into Mongolia itself. The Mongols may have even helped with this at times. In the prologue to her book "Tears of Blood, A Cry For Tibet" Mary Craig describes the situation under both the Mongols and later the Manchus as "benign, remote and caused barely a ripple on the unchanging surface of Tibetan life" (18). I'll address the Manchus later but for now what is important is that although the Tibetan people were no longer independent, their way of life seems to have changed very little under Mongol rule. It may even be safe to say that if not for outside interference, the Tibetans may have stayed under Mongol rule indefinitely.
The situation in China was a bit different. The Manchus were on the rise and by 1624 were engaging and defeating the Mongols in battle. In 1632 they had, "succeeded in wringing from China official recognition of Manchu superiority over the Mongols in rank" (Li 33). By 1633 they were on the march southwards and had all the Mongols in eastern China either submitting or fleeing. Soon China would be under Manchu domination with only Mongols to the north and west remaining as a threat. Eventually, China under the Manchus would turn her attention to the west, and Tibet.
As China turned her attention to the west I think it is important to remember that the Chinese goal here did not seem to be domination of Tibet and her people, but rather the elimination of the Mongol threat. We should remember that China had just liberated herself from Mongol occupation, however, the Mongols were still a formidable force and still in control of Tibet. Also of concern to China was the possibility of a "Mongol Empire including Tibet under a common religion..." (Li 39). In 1718 the Chinese Emperor took action and the Tibetans found themselves in the middle of a struggle for supremacy between the Manchus and the Mongols. This power struggle culminated in victory for the Manchus in 1720. It was then that a Manchu army allied with a Tibetan army drove the Mongols from Tibet. This effectively ended Mongol domination of Tibet and ushered in a new period of Manchu domination.
In my next installment I will discuss Tibet under Chinese domination until the early 20th century.
References:
Craig, Mary. Tears of Blood A Cry for Tibet. Washington, DC: Counterpoint, 1999.
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Tibet and China: The early period
Yesterday, armed with two books, I began my journey through Tibetan history in earnest. As I said in my previous post I began with Mr. Li's book to learn about the ancient history of Tibet. I must say that the very earliest period was a bit difficult to read about as the names of people and places were in Tibetan and Chinese. In spite of this, I managed to glean what I feel is important information from the text. Not surprisingly, the history of China goes back a long way and I found that the earliest mention of contact between the two countries is about 2200 BC. In my opinion, it is important that the author treats Tibet and China as two separate and distinct countries. He mentions Chinese Emperors and Tibetan Kings, and in doing so he confirms that the two countries were at one time free and independent of each other.
For his purpose of defining status Mr. Li mentions that "Definite relations, however, were not established until the T'ang dynasty (618-907). It was during the period of this dynasty that no fewer than one hundred missions went from one country to the other" (6). What went on between the two countries is pretty much what can be expected. News was passed back and forth between Tibet and China, treaties were signed, matrimonial alliances formed, gifts exchanged and Mr. Li mentions Tibet paying tribute to the Chinese Emperor. There were border disputes and wars, "The two countries were often at war-one side being victorious at one time and the other at another-and frontier conflicts were common" (6). What I feel is important here is that Mr. Li consistently refers to Tibet and China as separate countries.
In addition to what I mentioned above other means of communication were in effect as well. Religious ideas were passed back and forth. Due to marriage alliances, cultural influences were passed back and forth. Knowledge and learning was also shared. Military assistance was provided by either country to the other at various different times. In discussing the relations between the two countries from the seventh through the ninth centuries Mr. Li also mentions Tibet's military standing, "During that period, Tibet as a military power was by no means inferior to China..." (18). Throughout all of this I get the impression that China was slightly more dominant in this early period with most of the influence on the mentioned issues flowing from China to Tibet. In spite of this, it is of the utmost importance, again in my opinion, that we remember that Tibet was an independent country.
Relations betwen the two countries went on in this manner for hundreds of years until both were shaken by a newcomer on the scene, the Mongols. As the Mongols went on their campaigns of military expansion, they inevitably came into contact with both Tibet and China, and both countries suffered. And, for the first time in their history, the Tibetans fell under the domination of a foreign power. Although they suffered the loss of their independence, the Tibetans suffered less than other peoples the Mongols conquered. The Buddhist religion flourished and spread, sometimes with Mongol help.
In summary, from the earliest times there was contact between the independent countries of Tibet and China. Tibet would not succumb to a foreign power until the 13th century when the Mongols invaded. Although they lost their independence, the Tibetans would survive this clash with the Mongols and keep their culture and religion intact. In later entries we will see how Tibetan culture and religion are faring under Chinese Communist domination.
References:
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
For his purpose of defining status Mr. Li mentions that "Definite relations, however, were not established until the T'ang dynasty (618-907). It was during the period of this dynasty that no fewer than one hundred missions went from one country to the other" (6). What went on between the two countries is pretty much what can be expected. News was passed back and forth between Tibet and China, treaties were signed, matrimonial alliances formed, gifts exchanged and Mr. Li mentions Tibet paying tribute to the Chinese Emperor. There were border disputes and wars, "The two countries were often at war-one side being victorious at one time and the other at another-and frontier conflicts were common" (6). What I feel is important here is that Mr. Li consistently refers to Tibet and China as separate countries.
In addition to what I mentioned above other means of communication were in effect as well. Religious ideas were passed back and forth. Due to marriage alliances, cultural influences were passed back and forth. Knowledge and learning was also shared. Military assistance was provided by either country to the other at various different times. In discussing the relations between the two countries from the seventh through the ninth centuries Mr. Li also mentions Tibet's military standing, "During that period, Tibet as a military power was by no means inferior to China..." (18). Throughout all of this I get the impression that China was slightly more dominant in this early period with most of the influence on the mentioned issues flowing from China to Tibet. In spite of this, it is of the utmost importance, again in my opinion, that we remember that Tibet was an independent country.
Relations betwen the two countries went on in this manner for hundreds of years until both were shaken by a newcomer on the scene, the Mongols. As the Mongols went on their campaigns of military expansion, they inevitably came into contact with both Tibet and China, and both countries suffered. And, for the first time in their history, the Tibetans fell under the domination of a foreign power. Although they suffered the loss of their independence, the Tibetans suffered less than other peoples the Mongols conquered. The Buddhist religion flourished and spread, sometimes with Mongol help.
In summary, from the earliest times there was contact between the independent countries of Tibet and China. Tibet would not succumb to a foreign power until the 13th century when the Mongols invaded. Although they lost their independence, the Tibetans would survive this clash with the Mongols and keep their culture and religion intact. In later entries we will see how Tibetan culture and religion are faring under Chinese Communist domination.
References:
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
Friday, April 4, 2008
Tibet and China: Opening thoughts
Wow, what is the world coming to? Not only have I done homework on a Monday evening but now I am hard at it again on a FRIDAY evening! And the craziest part of it all is that I have been looking forward to getting back into this all day! With that said, shall I begin?
As I stated earlier, I want to start at the earliest period and work my way forward. I plan on moving forward through time fairly rapidly so I will not go too deep into all the details of Tibetan history. Up until this week, all I had at my disposal for research purposes was the news articles that I could pull down off the Internet. That changed on Tuesday when I went to the library and checked out a couple of books. A library is a wonderful thing... Anyway, I selected two books that I would use in my research. The first is entitled "The Historical Status of Tibet" and was written by the Chinese author Tieh-Tseng Li. I selected it primarily because of it's title and the fact that it was written by a Chinese person who states that he has "endeavored to be as impartial as possible" (Li 3). Also important in my decision to select this book was that it was written in the 1950s so it covers Tibet from the earliest periods up until that traumatic decade. My second selection is entitled "Tears of Blood A Cry For Tibet" by Mary Craig. This book picks up where the other left off as best I can tell. So with the two of them I feel I have Tibet covered, and from both sides of the spectrum.
I began reading Tieh-Tseng Li's book first because it would start at the ancient periods and come forward through time. I didn't get far when I read something that startled me a bit and it got me thinking. Page one of the introduction has Mr. Li explaining what he is attempting to accomplish with the writing of this book. In a nutshell, he is attempting to explain the status of Tibet throughout history. He tells us "In the first place, the status of a nation is not a matter of how that nation regards itself, or even how another nation regards it: status is to be found somewhere in the relations which obtain between the nation in question and all the other nations which may affect it and which it may affect" (Li 1, 2). He goes on to tell us that "In the third place, in making a historical study of the status of Tibet, reliance has to be placed on sources other than Tibetan" (Li 2). Might this be a case of history being written by the victors? I'm not sure about that but the possibility is there. In the following paragraphs I'd like to discuss the two quotes I have listed.
Although his statement on status can be interpreted in a variety of ways, it seems to indicate, at least to me, that the nations feelings, thoughts and opinions about itself don't seem to matter much. What bothers me is that it seems that this approach could be a means to justify one nation's dominance over another. This statement seems dangerous to me because there are nations in this world that do not have their own, officially recognized, organized state or country. Several nations come to mind immediately, the Tibetans, Kurds, Basques and even the Bretons in my opinion would all fall into this category. These nations are not officially recognized and hence have no relations with other nations and other nations have no relations with them, therefore, the Tibetans, Kurds, Basques and Bretons have no status! If we look at all of these peoples, we would find that they have been swallowed up by larger, more powerful nations that will not allow them to determine their own destiny.
The next quote tells us that in order for us to learn about Tibet, we will have to rely upon sources other than Tibetan sources. The reason for this is that the Tibetan sources deal mainly with religious events and not historical events. In light of this, the best source available to us is China, the very nation that has swallowed up the Tibetan nation! Now I must admit that I have only recently begun to learn about this subject so I cannot say whether or not the Chinese records are accurate, they may very well be for all I know at this point. But still, relying on the records of only one nation involved in a dispute of this magnitude doesn't sit well with me.
In my rationale for selecting this topic I closed with saying that I felt Tibet was the underdog in this situation. That was my opinion based on what I had seen on the news and read in articles up to that point. Nothing I have read so far in in my research efforts has changed that opinion.
References:
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
As I stated earlier, I want to start at the earliest period and work my way forward. I plan on moving forward through time fairly rapidly so I will not go too deep into all the details of Tibetan history. Up until this week, all I had at my disposal for research purposes was the news articles that I could pull down off the Internet. That changed on Tuesday when I went to the library and checked out a couple of books. A library is a wonderful thing... Anyway, I selected two books that I would use in my research. The first is entitled "The Historical Status of Tibet" and was written by the Chinese author Tieh-Tseng Li. I selected it primarily because of it's title and the fact that it was written by a Chinese person who states that he has "endeavored to be as impartial as possible" (Li 3). Also important in my decision to select this book was that it was written in the 1950s so it covers Tibet from the earliest periods up until that traumatic decade. My second selection is entitled "Tears of Blood A Cry For Tibet" by Mary Craig. This book picks up where the other left off as best I can tell. So with the two of them I feel I have Tibet covered, and from both sides of the spectrum.
I began reading Tieh-Tseng Li's book first because it would start at the ancient periods and come forward through time. I didn't get far when I read something that startled me a bit and it got me thinking. Page one of the introduction has Mr. Li explaining what he is attempting to accomplish with the writing of this book. In a nutshell, he is attempting to explain the status of Tibet throughout history. He tells us "In the first place, the status of a nation is not a matter of how that nation regards itself, or even how another nation regards it: status is to be found somewhere in the relations which obtain between the nation in question and all the other nations which may affect it and which it may affect" (Li 1, 2). He goes on to tell us that "In the third place, in making a historical study of the status of Tibet, reliance has to be placed on sources other than Tibetan" (Li 2). Might this be a case of history being written by the victors? I'm not sure about that but the possibility is there. In the following paragraphs I'd like to discuss the two quotes I have listed.
Although his statement on status can be interpreted in a variety of ways, it seems to indicate, at least to me, that the nations feelings, thoughts and opinions about itself don't seem to matter much. What bothers me is that it seems that this approach could be a means to justify one nation's dominance over another. This statement seems dangerous to me because there are nations in this world that do not have their own, officially recognized, organized state or country. Several nations come to mind immediately, the Tibetans, Kurds, Basques and even the Bretons in my opinion would all fall into this category. These nations are not officially recognized and hence have no relations with other nations and other nations have no relations with them, therefore, the Tibetans, Kurds, Basques and Bretons have no status! If we look at all of these peoples, we would find that they have been swallowed up by larger, more powerful nations that will not allow them to determine their own destiny.
The next quote tells us that in order for us to learn about Tibet, we will have to rely upon sources other than Tibetan sources. The reason for this is that the Tibetan sources deal mainly with religious events and not historical events. In light of this, the best source available to us is China, the very nation that has swallowed up the Tibetan nation! Now I must admit that I have only recently begun to learn about this subject so I cannot say whether or not the Chinese records are accurate, they may very well be for all I know at this point. But still, relying on the records of only one nation involved in a dispute of this magnitude doesn't sit well with me.
In my rationale for selecting this topic I closed with saying that I felt Tibet was the underdog in this situation. That was my opinion based on what I had seen on the news and read in articles up to that point. Nothing I have read so far in in my research efforts has changed that opinion.
References:
Li, Tieh-Tseng. The Historical Status of Tibet. New York: King's Crown Press, 1956.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)