quote:

To ask whether "Tibet" is historically or culturally "Chinese" runs
the danger of an essentialism. Chinese culture emerged over the
centuries as a blend of various non-Han cultures, and so there's no
reason to see the cultural interaction between the Tibetans and
Chinese any differently. Unfortunately, some people unwisely idealize
Tibetan culture and hypostatize it so that any outside influences
become a danger or affront. That makes little sense in terms of how
cultures actually evolve. A blending and mixing is presumably a good
thing unless there is good reason to believe otherwise in a particular
instance.

Whether Tibet is part of greater China in historical terms is either
tautological or a question without answer. It begs the question of
what exactly is meant by "Tibet" and "China"? Is a Christian Tibetan
non-Tibetan? Is New Mexico not part of the US because of the manner of
its acquisition? On the other hand, it might be tautological, for in
fact the autonomous region of Tibet is unquestionably within the
Chinese federation.

As for why China is so adamant in its Tibet policy, it would help if
you specified what you meant by "adamant"? If Chinese policy in Tibet
were beneficial and pursued vigorously, would you describe it as
"adamant" If the word implies an inflexibility, such behavior is
surely either a virtue or a vice depending on our assessment of the
policy.

The Chinese government was once badly divided on whether to push for
Western development or to keep all its economic marbles on the east
coast. Western development was the choice made, and by most measures,
this policy has been enormously beneficial. It did however,
necessarily run counter to some traditional values and vested
interests, and (with CIA support) those interests periodically
manifest themselves as an opposition. But study of the current
situation seem to conclude that the popular discontent is not so much
directed against the Chinese government as against Han residents, much
as in my country there is often a resentment of Korean shopkeepers.

There seems to be a broad understanding that the unrest in Tibet is a
reaction against modernization. So the question becomes, is
modernization good and necessary in Tibet, and was it carried out
intelligently and humanely? This puts your question into a quite
different framework, I believe.

High Ranking Official of the Realm of Unproductivity and Procrastination, 
Dean of the UUP, First Class member of the order of the Pineapple.

scruffy ambulating reanimated hypothetical vegetarian leigonairre of the undead.  ~ Cav

Look, I've got a cape and a tendency towards violence.  It does not make me a superhero!  ~ Domitella

quote:

India: China's railway link into Tibet is an engineering marvel. The Qinghai-Tibet rail link is expected to boost the Tibetan economy through increased trade and tourism.There is the concern, however, that migration of Han Chinese to Tibet, already encouraged by the Chinese government, can be expected to increase, with implications for Tibet's demography and cultural identity. There is concern too that the train will increase Beijing's military control over this restive region. The rail link holds out a mixed bag for India. On the one hand,it enhances China's military reinforcement capabilities against India. And,with a route into Tibet, along with the bus link across the Nathu-la Pass to India, it will enable Chinese goods to flood Indian markets. But the reverse holds true too: It provides India withaccess to Chinese markets, and this is what Delhi needs to build upon.

High Ranking Official of the Realm of Unproductivity and Procrastination, 
Dean of the UUP, First Class member of the order of the Pineapple.

scruffy ambulating reanimated hypothetical vegetarian leigonairre of the undead.  ~ Cav

Look, I've got a cape and a tendency towards violence.  It does not make me a superhero!  ~ Domitella

quote:

In a nutshell, the very mechanisms by which Beijing has been attempting to resolve the “Tibet Question” through the force of rapid growth has in fact been reinforcing underlying political and social tensions due to the marginalization of Tibetans in the face of such growth.

quote:

Deposits of oil and natural gas, and chromite, gold and zinc will be shipped east to China, with most economic benefits bypassing the many Tibetans who live on the outskirts of Tibet's centrally controlled economy, beyond the reach of the railway.
(...)
China has made no secret of its military interest in the railway either.

quote:

Originally posted by Dweller in Darkness:
For me, this is a state's rights issue. If the administrative body of a state, which is the least discrete geo-political unit that I think we can consider Tibet to be, wishes to secede from the larger government body that administrates it, it should be allowed to do, although I definitely think that if the larger body has put a lot of resources into that state, they should get some recompense when the state leaves, and should make it clear that when the larger body leaves, certain infrastructure will become the state's responsibility.

I don't think that the larger body has the right to use its military, or the threat of its military, to keep this from happening.

What muddies things further is that in Tibet there doesn't appear to be a true "administrative body" capable of making this decision on the part of its populace.

quote:

Originally posted by D M:
Taking the second article, it certainly does seem like Chinese rule has not done Tibet harm demographically - the Tibetan population has doubled, and the Han compriseonly 6% of the population. Over forty years of Chinese rule, that's a pretty miniscule number - less than the number of immigrants in the UK. To pass an analogy, the Tibetan (and outsider) opposition to Han 'encroachment' on Tibetan historical land does seem a little - well, racist.
.