|
xuci111111 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Well then I should reference you a few books written by western authors who agree with me
SauLaan (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
HA xuci, are you for real?? I was raised in HK, my dad in Lanzhou. NO Chinese person calls non-Chinese "Chinese" lol.The 56 ethnics?? Not even Hakka are sometimes considered "Han" ...!!It's okay! Not everyone has to be the same - no big deal!But calling Tibetans Chinese? Please. Calling Uyghurs Chinese? You're on drugs.Don't be in the ranks of the idiots.
xuci111111 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The definition of "Chinese" has never only indicated Han ethnic, China is composed of 56 ethnic groups and the total of the 56 ethnics together are called "Chinese" as a whole.
hcn9 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
youve misunderstood the word 'chinese'. why tibetans are called tibetans instead of chinese? becuz the majority of china are hans and they are reffered to simply as 'chinese'. hans are the majority which is over 90% of the population. this is why your confused about tibetans not being called chinese. its no different than mongols or hui muslims. tibet is part of 'China' as a whole
SauLaan (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
If Tibet was part of China for centuries, you would have said the "Chinese riots in Lhassa on 3.14." You would refer to the Dalai Lama as a "Chinese leader." You would refer to Tibetans living abroad as "Chinese."But no one ever does.Shanghai is called by the world "Shanghai," Lanzhou is called "Lanzhou," but Tibet is called "Tibet."Clearly distinct.
hcn9 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
yes tibet was no different from any other places back in 50s. so why hate china when they have given tibet education, healthcare, roads, houses, economy etc? but it was inevitable that china got involved with tibet. after all, it has been part of china for centuries
SauLaan (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
hcn9, no country has ever been a shangri-la. When my family lived in China there were still female slaves and many women still had feet bound. It's nobody's business to determine what kind of society someone has; it's a Tibetan issue, not Chinese.China in 1950 had plenty of problems; that's no reason to bad-mouth China today.
hcn9 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
there were nobles around during dalai liar's rule. i dont know what part of tibet your family visited, but its a fact that tibet back then was no shangri-la
JeSauLaan (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
hcn9, I don't know what poorly-written textbook you're basing that nonsense on, but their weren't any "nobles" around. Maybe you meant nomads? That's who my family visited, along with some traders, some monastics, etc. A few farmers.
hcn9 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
i mean their (not yours) family must be a noble or local officials. it was known that back then that all of the land in tibet was owned by local officials, nobles or high ranked lamas. even though they accounted for 5% of the population |
