Tibetan Independance

I read a message of the Dalai Llama’s, to the people of America (Non-Tibetans, Specifically), link is here: dalailama.com/news.372.htm

I was wondering, what do you, ye people of faith, believe about this subject? Should Tibet be independant, and the Dalai Llama allowed to live there, and preach his truth (not saying it is the truth, saying, he believes it is, so it would be in-fact, his truth) there, to the people?

I am for it, but I want to know your opinoin.

Your Friend,
Cain

China has NO business in occupying Tibet. :mad:

If the Chinese government is so convinced that Tibetans are “happy”, why not put it to a vote? The government should have nothing to fear.

Unless, of course, they’re *lying *about the Tibetans…and they wouldn’t do that, would they?

I am in favour of Tibetan independance. I am also in favour of Uyghur independance.

Me too.

I am also in favor of Hawaiian independence, and Sioux independence. None of these seem likely to happen in my lifetime. The way it’s going Tibet will someday have a majority Han population and Tibetans will be migrating to the big cities on the east coast for good jobs and that will be the end of that.

They are a good people, those Tibetans. Joyful and forgiving. God have mercy upon them!

Hmmm… The funny thing is: Those same people who advocates Tibetan independence, because that’s what the Tibetans want, would probably not argue the right of the states of the former CSA to seceede IF the people in those states so desired.

I’m undecided in this matter. For me, it’s kind of an adiaphora-question. Tibet is the least of our concerns regarding China. We need to be more focused on how we deal with China’s growing economic and industrial power, because THAT power (rather than their outdated military) is what can pose a serious threat to the West.

Unfortunately, we do NOT live in happy-land, and therefore need to face the geopolitical facts - to relate to the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.

Does the US have any business occupying the former states of the CSA? :wink:

My point is that, from a Chinese perspective, Tibet is as integral a part of China, as the former CSA is of the US, from an American perspective.

I would advocate a Revolution for the CSA’s rights, I’d fight for it too. I do not believe it will happen, but if it did, and it was for the right reasons, I’d join, and do my best to help it’s cause, but that is very unlikely.

Well, then at least your opinion is consistent, and I respect that :slight_smile:

A whole-hearted, full-throated YES to independence in both cases. Of course, neither seems very likely in our lifetimes, but who knows? Stranger and more sudden geopolitical shifts have been known to occur.

I certainly want independence for Tibet. That used to be a passion of mine in college. Protests, fliers all of that stuff. I used to go schools and talk to the children about Tibetan culture and their plight. Unfortunately they are not alone in their plight in this world. Self determination is a divine right to all people.

What is your position on above-mentioned questions, then? :slight_smile:

Just my two cents, but I am also somewhat on the fence on this issue. I normally would support the separationists; to me, however that seems almost unnecessary here. I do believe China should let the Dalai-Lama return to Tibet. But it seems that the major problem for Tibetans is the absence of the Dalai-Lama. If the Dalai-Lama comes back, wouldn’t the Tibetans be happy if the government made Tibet some sort of special region like Hong-Kong or Macau or even Taiwan?

Pax.

This might be a result of me misreading but Taiwan is not a part of China.

Woops. I did think Taiwan was a part of China, but I did my research. Taiwan is separate from, but claimed by, China and currently represented by China in international politics. Sorry for the confusion there. My fault.

Pax.

The Nationalists on Taiwan never saw their island as separate from China.

Basically the KMT position has been that the mainland was in rebellion. For their part the Communists have maintained that it was Taiwan that was in rebellion. So both parties (KMT and CCP) have steadfastly maintained that there is but ONE China. It is easy to see how people can get confused about it.
:hypno: 1 + 1 = 1

Hopefully someday the two will settle their differences peacefully. :slight_smile: As it is, the business ties are very strong now.

Fair question. I would support the right of those peoples for independence. Of course I guess all of these things do have qualifications. If a group wished to separate itself from its parent country for deviant reasons, say wanting to reestablish slavery, or some such, then yes I think the parent country would have a right to stop the group for the protection of its inhabitants. It could also be argued that such a group could possibly be a threat to its neighbors.

However, subjugated, vanquished, or persecuted peoples certainly have a right to separation. Its a sad thing that almost every nation in existence today has formed itself on the subjugation of other groups. Still, one fact of human existence is that the strong usually get their way.

Sounds remarkably familiar.

Well…I’m pretty sure that the inhabitants of the CSA would have qualified as “subjugated, vanquished and persecuted” after the Civil War?
So does that mean that they had the right to seperate, and reestablish the CSA?

Furthermore: It seems that the logic in the part of your answer that I didn’t quote here is flawed. Either a people that desire freedom has the right to seperate, or they don’t. Either a country’s territorial integrity is inviolable (correctly spelled, right?), or it isn’t.

Should Denmark demand Skåne, Halland and Blekinge returned from Sweden because they stole those provinces from us in 1659, or Slesvig-Holsten from Germany, who stole those territories in 1864?

Or something that would probably hit closer to home:
Should Mexico demand back the territories that the US conquered from it?

For how they were treated after the war? Absolutely. The North was brutal to the South. As for the scenarios leading up to the war, both sides were hypocritical in the extreme. So I guess that one is a toss up.

Furthermore: It seems that the logic in the part of your answer that I didn’t quote here is flawed. Either a people that desire freedom has the right to seperate, or they don’t. Either a country’s territorial integrity is inviolable (correctly spelled, right?), or it isn’t.

Well, if we want to over simplify everything sure.

But nations are by their nature, exclusive, and by their very existence they give off a message of “us against them”. So while it is true that a people have a right to forum, up it is not unreasonable for those around them to take note or possibly feel threatened. If a nation legalized slavery of a given race then it is not unreasonable for its neighbors to assume the worst from that nation. Its very existence will generate black market trading that endangers the rights off everyone around it. History shows us that. So yes like everything else there can be “exceptions”.

Should Denmark demand Skåne, Halland and Blekinge returned from Sweden because they stole those provinces from us in 1659, or Slesvig-Holsten from Germany, who stole those territories in 1864?

Do the people of those territories want independence, or to join with another state? If so then yes.

[quote]Or something that would probably hit closer to home:
Should Mexico demand back the territories that the US conquered from it?

Well, first off Mexico is more likely to give us its northern territories than to demand our southern ones back.

But to answer the point anyway, the majority of citizens in Texas at that time were in favor of annexation, and in fact had already severed its political ties with Mexico when it was annexed. The additional southern territories were more blatant acts of aggression and expansion no doubt. At that time Mexico would certainly have had very legitimate rights for dispute. Of course they also lost those territories when they declared war over Texas, when its people had simply exercised their independence.

Today? Well, I guess it would depend on what the citizens of the areas in question would want to do. If they wanted to revert to Mexico then more power to them.
[/quote]

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.