Is Tibet a victim of Chinese aggression/oppression as Western media claims?

[Yohan]

How does Tibet not belong to China? When was Tibet ever independent? I don't see any historical proof that Tibet was ever its own sovereign nation. Not even the UN recognizes Tibet as an independent nation.

I do not see any historical proof that Tibet was ever a part of China either.

As a fact, Tibet is divided now. Occupied is the right word if you ask me.

If you think Tibet belongs to China, I think Tibet belong to India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Accord_(1914)

Tibet declared independence in 1913
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of ... _and_Tibet

Of course this was not accepted by China, which will always use military force to crash weak people.

And how can be Tibet a part of China, if South Tibet is within Indian territory and people living in Arunachal Pradesh are anything else but Chinese?

Mongolia managed to become independent, but unfortunately Tibet failed.

[OutWest]

How does Tibet not belong to China? When was Tibet ever independent? I don't see any historical proof that Tibet was ever its own sovereign nation. Not even the UN recognizes Tibet as an independent nation.

I do not see any historical proof that Tibet was ever a part of China either.

As a fact, Tibet is divided now. Occupied is the right word if you ask me.

If you think Tibet belongs to China, I think Tibet belong to India.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simla_Accord_(1914)

Tibet declared independence in 1913
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of ... _and_Tibet

Of course this was not accepted by China, which will always use military force to crash weak people.

And how can be Tibet a part of China, if South Tibet is within Indian territory and people living in Arunachal Pradesh are anything else but Chinese?

Mongolia managed to become independent, but unfortunately Tibet failed.

All of China is in fact occupied by the the most murderous regime the world has ever known.

[Bao3niang]

Technically, Tibet was historically its own empire, however, it has been culturally close to China for ages. The Tibetan people and Han Chinese may be related to each other as genetic cousins, with a theory that the Han-Tibetan divergence is only a couple thousand years old. China has had military incursions into Tibet in recent history, but it was only to deal with a few troublemakers. I think the best way to come to a conclusion about these issues of territory and ethnicity is to see how the average Tibetan or whatever group feels about the Chinese. And what I can tell you is, I don't think the average Tibetan gives a f**k about 'Free Tibet' or anything, they just go about their lives like anyone else.

As someone who's apolitical and an anarchist at heart, I believe that nation states are such an unnatural and artificial construct to begin with. I don't know if I can agree with the statement that man is political by nature. I think the evolution of so-called civilization and the state is the result of a very specific set of circumstances that led to one group dominating over the others, rather than a collective consciousness that gradually led to the development of what the world has become. That's my interpretation, at least.

So if you were to ask me my opinion on China-Tibet, China-Taiwan, China-Hong Kong China-Xinjiang or whatever, I would say something like this: If that these territories became independent, or placed under control by another sovereign nation, they wouldn't necessarily fare better. However, my deepest thoughts can be summarized as:

1. There's not much of a point in debating over these issues because the existence of the nation-state and government is so unnatural and artificial. I don't like the idea of 'I get to call the shots because I'm bigger, mightier, richer, and therefore qualified to rule over the rest of you.' Let's face it, the people in power usually aren't there because of their wisdom / kindness.

2. The average person cares more about their next meal, whether their spouse is cheating on them, whether their children are fed and clothed, rather than political ideology. In fact, the idea of identifying with a nation-state, rather than one's town / village / clan, is not exactly a very ancient thing.

3. I don't love any country in a patriotic sense. I can adore a country for its culture (though I don't feel a need to tie myself to a rigid set of cultural norms, I pick up and dispose as I please), its food, its scenery, its conveniences, its people, but never in a 'patriotic' sense. I wouldn't fight for Canada because I (as of now) carry a Canadian passport, nor would I fight for China because I'm Chinese by blood. I'm not obligated to do anything for any country, I just go for what makes me happy as an individual. If World War 3 started, the first thing on my mind would be the safety of the few people I care about as well as myself, not serving any government in any capacity. I don't salute any flag (I'm Christian but now a JW), I don't stand up during any anthem, and I refuse to swear and pledges or oaths.


So my verdict is, in my ideal world, nobody would even talk about these issues because they simply wouldn't exist. A world without political borders, only ethnic groups, cultures (though some are clearly worse off than others), peoples, communities, and...... spontaneity.