Talk:Tibet

Tips for some Hippie/Neoliberal/Asiophobe/Red Scare wooing
Pick one of them if you need to defend Tibet in a debate.


 * Tibet used to be a democracy!
 * The CTA will bring a democracy, more equal than any other country!
 * Being a serf is a spiritual endeavor!
 * The Communist ethnicity is initiating a race war in Tibet!
 * The Chinese will eat all Tibetan animals!
 * Tibetans are Aryans!
 * Tibet needs to be mysterious for ever!

--Teslashark with Danzhen Yangtsin.(talk) 08:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

About the last paragraph
A website called Students for a free Tibet has a nice page, "China’s Favorite Propaganda on Tibet ... and Why It’s Wrong". I'll quote:

Beijing (as well as sympathetic Western scholars such as Michael Parenti, Tom Grunfeld and Anna Louise Strong) asserts that "pre-liberation" Tibet was a medieval, oppressive society consisting of "landowners, serfs and slaves." Tashi Rabgay, a Tibetan scholar at Harvard, points out that these three alleged social classes are arbitrary and revisionist classifications that have no basis in reality. There were indeed indentured farmers in old Tibet. There were also merchants, nomads, traders, non-indentured farmers, hunters, bandits, monks, nuns, musicians, aristocrats and artists. Tibetan society was a vast, multifaceted affair, as real societies tend to be. To try to reduce it to three base experiences (and non-representative experiences at that) is to engage in the worst kind of revisionism.

No country is perfect and many Tibetans (including the Dalai Lama) admit that old Tibet had its flaws and inequities (setting aside whether things are better under Chinese occupation). But taking every real or imagined shortcoming that happened in a country over a 600-year period and labeling it the "way it was" is hardly legitimate history. Any society seen through this blurry lens would come up short. And in many ways, such as the elimination of the death penalty, Tibet was perhaps ahead of its time. The young 14th Dalai Lama had begun to promote land reform laws and other improvements, but China's take-over halted these advances. It is instructive to note that today the Tibetan government-in-exile is a democracy while China and Tibet are under communist dictatorship.

The crucial subtext of Beijing's condemnation of Tibet's "feudal" past is a classic colonialist argument that the target's alleged backwardness serves as a justification for invasion and occupation. These are the politics of the colonist, in which the "native" is dehumanized, robbed of agency, and debased in order to make occupation more palatable or even necessary and "civilizing." China has no more right to occupy a "backward" Tibet than Britain had to carry the "white man's burden" in India or Hong Kong.

--Earthland (talk) 07:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This quote is from a biased source. Every credible scholar except Tashi Rabgay, says that Tibet, pre-China, was a horrible, oppressive theocracy. Even Tashi Rabgay admits they had slaves, although he uses the weasel word "indentured farmers." I am not one to defend the current Chinese government, but if you honestly think feudalism, theocracy and slavery are better, I really don't know what to say to you.UncleHo (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that the article is not defending the theocrats, only saying that one should not use a condemnation of the theocrats to excuse the Chinese abuses. 08:17, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that my edit doesn't defend the Chinese actions in Tibet, only saying that the previous government of Tibet was no better, if not worse. Oh wait, you can't do that, you're LX, and LX is ALWAYS right!UncleHo (talk) 08:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true; I was merely adding to what you had said. 08:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you were heavily editing a long quote to only contain the parts which make you appear right and underhandedly diss those evil reds. You are making a regressive, feudal theocracy seem good just so you can make communist China look extra bad. The rest of the edit would be acceptable, as I have no time to keep arguing against your incredible determination to be right no matter what, but that quote is cherrypicking at it's worst.UncleHo (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think that the article paints an overly rosy picture of the old feudal society, but that does not make the paragraph I quoted any less valid. 08:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I do think what I quoted was wrong, but that doesn't make me wrong! Do you have ANY idea how ridiculous you sound, LX? I tell you what. Cut the cherry picked quote out and I'll let the rest of it go.UncleHo (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Also admit you were wrong and quoting shit out of context to make your point and satiate your desire to win arguments no matter how ridiculous, contradictory and intellectually dishonest you need to be until the other party gets tired of it and gives up, paste the admission to your userpage and I'll let you do whatever you want to the socialism article.UncleHo (talk) 08:54, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The part of the quote that LX chose to put in the article wasn't out of context. It was relevant and a whole idea. And there was nothing wrong with it. --Earthland (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it's a bullshit, hand wringing tu quoque that tries to make a horrible, regressive theocracy look good by saying "COLONIALISM IS BAD OK?" I agree that colonialism and imperialism are wrong and should be opposed, but that doesn't mean we should support slave owning feudal states, either. This is not a zero sum game. We CAN say they're both assholes. The only thing is, everyone says the Chinese are assholes, yet the horrible conditions in Tibet are glossed over when the Dalai Lama visits Berkeley.UncleHo (talk) 18:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The article is not making any excuses for the alleged "regressive theocracy". It simply says that it is not a reason to invade and occupy a country. --Earthland (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I know you're not a native English speaker, but that quote is so full of loaded language it's just propaganda, and it's coming from a very biased source. Also it's a tu quoque. It's using the crimes of the Chinese occupation to deflect criticism of the Dalai Lama and his kingdom in exlie. So, as the quote is biased, dishonest, loaded and made by a group that exists to defend a slave owning theocratic monarchy, why, exactly should it be allowed in?UncleHo (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the only one who's spreading propaganda. The article as it stands is neutral. -- Nx  / talk 19:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what propaganda is? Hint: It is not any statement which is critical of international celebrity and best selling author "His Holiness"UncleHo (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell me, how many slaves does the evil theocratic monarch, the Dalai Lama, currently own? -- Nx  / talk 19:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to China, 0. Prior to the invasion, he essentially owned the whole country as slaves (Being as it was feudalistic) and had thousands of personal "indentured servants."UncleHo (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just trading one authoritarian regime for another. I agree with Ho on a few things, notably, pre-invasion Tibet sucked royally. 2nd, every religion not in power will try to brand itself as a peaceful one. However, the current Lama seems a pretty decent fellow. If he got Tibet back, he might indeed make it a much nicer place, but we can't know that. What would help the most is a democratic, secular Tibet, but China doesn't want to lose control, and the Lama, nice man though he is, is a theocrat. Also, if he got Tibet back, and tried to change it into a theocracy again, he wouldn't have all that many supporters anymore, would he? There is no oil, no uranium, no diamonds, nothing of value. There are mountains and Yaks. It's China's poorest province. He is a figure because 1. Chinese are Dirty Commies, 2. He seems to be a nice guy, 3. New Agers love Tibet, 4. He's a government-in-exile which makes him useful to trot out for human-rights-things. Was the invasion justified? No, it was senseless. Did the Chinese commit atrocities? Yes indeed. Does Tibet need to be freed? Yes. Should we give it to the Lama? I am not sure. TyrannisAn Iron, but caring, fist 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Under Thubten Gyatso, Tibet was corrupt, poorly run, and weak. The People's Republic of China is brutal, overbearing, and a totalitarian police state not seen since the USSR, only capitalist-ish. The current gov't in exile (CTA), or practically any other gov't, would be better than what the Tibetans have ever had before or have now. cm 2 02:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Situation in Tibet under Buddhist rule
I have heard in some place that Tibet was at various times basically a particularly nasty theocracy of a certain strain of Buddhism. Maybe this would be on mission as it would dispel the claims of some Tibetan woo new-agers who just love Tenzin whatshisface... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope they were not only saying that to whitewash China's conquest of Tibet.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 20:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the section just above this one. The subject of feudal Tibet is also mentioned in the article, as is the issue of potential whitewashing of the Chinese takeover. Sheesh, guys... CamelCasePragmatist (talk) 20:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, it was a theocracy, but not, as far as my rather superficial knowledge of the subject goes, a particularly harsh one (especially when contrasted with subsequent Chinese rule). Nevertheless, I think Avenger's suggestion is relevant as long as it doesn't veer into pro-China apologetics.
 * However, if the article gets an overhaul, then some background on Tibet's status a wee bit farther back than the early 20th century might be nice - such as the fact that Tibet has only rarely been part of China (unlike what the text currently seems to suggest, or rather simply omits). Sure, Tibet was part of the - but so was Japan at various times, and no one's using that as an argument for Japan being a part of China. Similarly, the whole thing about de facto independence is silly when discussing pre-modern statehood (i.e. before the advent of the nation state) and again seems to imply that Tibet is a "natural" part of China. It's more relevant to check whether and when Tibet was de jure part of the Empire of China and not simply a vassal or tributary state.
 * And no, the context in which the article currently mentions "feudal Tibet" is a bit too superficial to do it justice for my taste (as is the weird "class war/mob war" summary of the Chinese Civil War, for that matter). Come to think of it, the discussion of the use of Tibet's supposed "backwardness" as a (retroactive?) justification for the Chinese invasion and takeover that has been well covered here on the talk page might merit a dedicated section in the article. Kind of how "Lost Causers" or "The U.S. was founded as a Christian nation"-adherents use their framing of history as a stick to beat contemporary political opponents with. Perhaps, and here I'm braving a balance fallacy, but bear with me, alongside a section the overly romanticised depictions of "Old Tibet" as a spiritual Shangri-La that seems to be the typical Hollywood trope. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I was getting at: Opposing current Chinese policy with regards to Tibet does not mean supporting the Dalai Lama (who may or may not wish to ultimately become a theocratic leader again, regardless of what he currently claims). Nor does it mean whitewashing the period prior to Chinese takeover. As for tributary relationships... I guess they were all sui generis. Some countries who paid tribute to the Chinese throne were de facto ruled from there, while other places paid token tribute and where in turn rewarded with tons of gold or equivalent in "gifts" on their way back as thinly concealed bribes / protection money / extortion. Hence a full coverage (if such a thing is at all possible) should at least touch upon this peculiar arrangement in general and in the Tibetan case in specific. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it or not, the Dalai Lama is the de facto head of the, I wouldn't even call it the independence or anti-Chinese, but rather the non-assimilationist movement in Tibet (the DL has gradually softened on pretty much all demands to an extent that he seems to be willing to accept a non-assimilationist, autonomous, but not independent, Tibet; whereas Beijing is simply waiting for him to die). But if you can come up with some other head of the non-assimilationist strategy, please fill in the blanks.
 * As for the idea that Tibet is or was historically an undisputed and integral part of (the Empire of) China it's basically non-existent outside of China, so Beijing's claims of merely being embarked on an irredentist mission similar to those in Hong Kong and and Macau is little more than a fig leaf for a blatant might makes right land grab in the aftermath of the Chinese Civil War.
 * The fact that the Qing had sent a military expedition to conquer Tibet in 1720 and again in 1910, of which only the former resulted in anything like longer lasting Chinese control, illustrates how weak the Chinese claim is (prior to 1720, Chinese control had been even shorter lived and more tenuous in the short periods it existed). Both military expeditions fit well within the time frame of European imperialism (for instance, Britain had sent its own military expedition to Tibet in 1904) and few of the claims made by Europeans of that era are recognised today — especially not against an entrenched local movement opposing them which is being repressed by authoritarian police measures and a ruthless assimilation policy. Hell, the British/English claim to Ireland is more solid than China's is to Tibet.
 * What any section on Tibet's history needs to avoid is the "rhetorical slide into Chineseness" that is really the only strategy Beijing has come up with to frame its "overlordship" of Tibet in non-imperialist terms. That Tibet was a theocracy is basically a red herring, because there doesn't seem to be anyone today who advocates (re)instating a theocracy. Emphasising the past theocracy thus ends implying the (false) dilemma of having to choose between Chinese oppression and assimilation and a pre-1949 theocracy. It's like indirectly endorsing a hypothetical Indian or Chinese claims to Nepal by pointing out that until comparatively recently, Nepal was a more or less feudal/absolute monarchy where debt bondage still existed (subtext: Hence, the imperial power's mission civilisatrice is justified), but again that's an anachronistic analysis. It's highly unlikely that, in the absence of the Chinese invasion, Tibet would today remain the theocratic monarchy is was in the early 20th century any more than Nepal remains an absolute monarchy or China an imperial monarchy, a (somewhat) democratic republic, a country of feuding warlords, a Kuomintang-ruled authoritarian military dictatorship, or Mao's mismanaged ramshackle and zigzagging revolutionary state. ScepticWombat (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * While you do raise some legitimate points, the problem of course is that Tibet is running out of time. The longer the Chinese have time to settle ethnic Han there, the bigger the number of ethnic Han born in Tibet. As soon as a majority or large minority of residents of Tibet are ethnic Han, Tibetan claims start becoming rather ridiculous. But I still think we should at least mention (part of) Tibet's history prior to the 1950s. If only to explain why no protracted Guerrilla resistance took place to kick the Chinese out. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tibetan claims don't become "ridiculous" simply because China runs a successful (from Beijing's viewpoint) colonisation strategy. This is doubly true when it's taken into account that the main objective of the Tibetan movement currently seems to be autonomy, rather than independence (i.e. no change in the Han inhabitants' status as Chinese citizens). To claim otherwise is simply a "might makes right" argument stretched out over time (essentially endorsing aggressive land grabbing as long as it's followed by an equally aggressive colonisation scheme). For instance, the fact that Latvia's population was almost 50% ethnically Russian at the time of its independence didn't make Latvian independence claims "ridiculous". China's colonisation strategy might make Tibetan claims unenforceable, but they are that under the current situation as well. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well does the will of the ethnic Han currently residing in Tibet count or does it not count? Demographics is a bitch. And you can't just throw out people willy-nilly because you say they are the result of "settler colonialism". The problem is: In some cases might does make right. Assad for example will not be charged with any crime, because he is just to valuable a pawn for Russia. Were he just a small town eye-doctor going on his private killing spree, he'd have been locked up years ago... And well you have to ask: What if at any point in time a majority of the residents of Lithuania (whatever their ethnicity) votes to join Russia? Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Before or after the Russians invade?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 21:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Before, naturally. Once the Russians invade, the credibility of any referendum tends to suffer... Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You cannot throw out the opinion of the people moved in through colonialism, but that doesn't make claims of independence or autonomy any less valid for the people already there, misguided ideas about "might making things right" you may have or not --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 21:35, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I have yet to see a serious and well thought out answer to the dilemma of "successful" settler colonialism (as happened e.g. in much of the Americas): What if the majority or a big enough minority/plurality of the people are the descendants of some group of "colonialists" but have only ever known one home? This one. If can't ignore the will of the ethnic Han born in Tibet (and I think we shouldn't because they have just as much right to live where they were born as any Tibetan), what does in fact happen if they form a "voting bloc" (if it ever came to a vote, that is) too large to ignore or large enough to sway an election? The last time a major policy was decided in an "ethnicity x only" election (that openly called itself such) was the bizarre almost two and a half decades ago. I think we should never ever again let a subgroup of people vote on the political status of another subgroup of people and call it "referendum" Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a hunch someone would mention the Americas example, but would it be regarded as anything but an illegal land grab if it was happening today, rather than +100 years in the past? Do the Han born in Tibet have particular rights? Well, I suppose they probably would have, but I'm also leaning towards the notion that while their opinions need to be factored in, they must be weighted against the circumstances of their arrival (i.e. as children of colonists) and against the countervailing factor of the or at the very least those parts of it who left the country to escape Chinese overlordship (and their descendants?). Or don't they get a vote? Anyway, and as I've already pointed out, the colonialists' children dilemma is irrelevant to the main avenue of the "Free Tibet" movement which seems to be working for autonomy, not independence.
 * Avenger, you seem to think that the Apartheid referendum is a parallel example, but you miss the point that it was essentially the opposite of a hypothetical Tibetan one: In Apartheid, it was the colonists' descendants who excluded the "natives" from a referendum on whether to continue relaxing a brutal colonialist system, not the colonised voting on kicking out the colonisers. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As a bit more of a polemical (and hypothetical) scenario, I could even envision an outright independence referendum which excluded the Han colonisers and their descendants IF such a referendum included ironclad guarantees of Tibetan citizenship, civil rights and protection of their property rights in an independent Tibet. A new Tibetan constitution could simply include an equally ironclad prohibition against any subsequent "Heim ins Reich"-referendum to forestall a Han vote on (re)attaching Tibet to the PRC even as it would protect the civil and property rights of the Han (along with all other citizens') in an independent Tibet. ScepticWombat (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * We are all the descendants of colonizers from Africa. I don't give a rat's ass on whether the Han or the Tibetans are colonizers in your book. In my book they either both have the same rights or they both have none. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 12:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to name a new informal fallacy the "Out of Africa"-fallacy and it's one you've used before, Avenger. The difference between either moving into uninhabited areas or settling in sparsely populated areas with the tacit consent of their inhabitants and a state conquering a neighbouring state and then progressing to a deliberate colonisation scheme should be too obvious to need mentioning. Perhaps you should think your (false) analogies a bit more through before invoking them? ScepticWombat (talk) 14:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well just take the example of the territories (roughly) between the Elbe and the Vistula rivers. In the first century AD, they were mostly inhabited by Germanic tribes who may or may not have considered each other similar to one another and were mostly engaged in hunting, gathering, small scale farming, warfare and ever shifting alliances among each other. After the migration period, most of the territory east of the Elbe is inhabited by Slavs who are pretty similar in material culture to the prior Germanic population, though they obviously differ linguistically. So by the 8th century AD the now powerful descendants of the Germanic tribes (and no doubt quite a bit of Roman genetic admixture, some of which possibly sub-Saharan) start conquering the lands east of the Elbe. At that time the issue is framed mostly along the lines of heathen or Christian and indeed the longest winded conflict is between Christian Franks and heathen Saxons, both of them Germanic and speakers of closely related languages. Fast forward to roughly 1000 AD and the lands east of Magdeburg are now being conquered, converted and colonized at a faster rate thaen before. As only a small minority of the Germanic people could read and write and none of the Slavic people have left records, we have to guess at much of what happened. The movement of colonizing starts getting faster and more intense and by the 12th century whole villages move en bloc to the "new" lands east. The Slavic population and their rulers react in a complex mixture of actively inviting settlement, fighting against it, moving east themselves or slowly adapting and assimilating into the culture of the Germanic "settlers". At the end of the Middle Ages, this is mostly over, though the rulers of Prussia do similar things when they invite Huguenot and other refugees into their sparsely populated territory along the Oder and further east. By the time nationalism rolls around, much of this territory is culturally German (or at least the predominant language is German) with isolated pockets of Slavic language and culture here and there. The material culture is largely homogeneous throughout the area. Thaen come the world wars (I am leaving out some things, like the German policy in the area 1870-1918) and at the end of them (almost) all culturally German people are expelled from the territory East of the Oder, in part with the justification that they were (descendants of) colonizers and that the territory in question was always "old Slavic land". Now you tell me, who that land "ought to" belong to, if not those living on it and born on it at any specific moment. After all, it has been colonized so often and changed hands more often, any talk of "colonizer" and "indigenous population" becomes meaningless. And I am sure, similar things can be said of Tibet if only one goes back far enough. Of course as the expulsion of the Germans is now a fait accompli no one in their right mind can wish for the expulsion of the current population and their replacement with Germans. And the same would be true for a thoroughly "colonized" Tibet. Of course Han-Tibetans have the same rights as non-Han-Tibetans. Or both have no rights. You know what I mean. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 15:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, after receiving a reminder that you can't simply use any historical example as a template for the China/Tibet problem, here comes the (a)historical grab bag again. Seriously, what are we supposed to take away from this romp through the history of the Oder/Vistula territory?
 * That, historically, people have always moved around? Sure, but how is that relevant to a deliberate colonisation scheme used by a government to secure its hold on conquered lands?
 * That peoples have conquered each other and/or colonised other peoples and their land and used various techniques of exclusion and assimilation to secure their hold over these conquered lands/peoples? Sure, but is that a reason to simply acquiesce to it today?
 * That there are complicated claims on territories? Sure, but what exactly is the complication in one state conquering another and then seeking to secure its hold through colonisation?
 * Once again, we get this haphazard "Look at how complex stuff is in the longue durée perspective"-argument without any considerations as to the specific relevance to or context of the China/Tibet issue. Okay, let's play this game, Godwin style: In this perspective, Nazi conquests would be sanctified the moment the colonisation scheme resulted in a German majority in an area - fair? This is not just a hypothetical scenario as the case of the use of the Sudeten Germans as the thin end of the wedge for German designs on Czechoslovakia illustrated. See how easy it is to ask questions about generalities without actually connecting them to the issue at hand? At least the German parallel has the virtue (except in the Sudeten case, of course) of actually involving a deliberate colonisation scheme in occupied territory in the era of the modern (nation) state and not anachronistic/ahistorical JAQing off using all kinds of pre-modern tribal, religious and dynastic issues.
 * The core questions are rather simple:
 * 1) Disregarding for a moment the practical problems of actually preventing the current Chinese fait accompli strategy of getting as many Han as possible to settle in Tibet as an "ethnic anchor" for Beijing's territorial claims, should we accept the outcome as morally or politically just?
 * 2) As a corollary of the first question, should we regard people (call them colonisers, settlers, or migrants) who arrive in a conquered territory as a direct consequence of the conquering state's colonisation strategy as being similar in their claims on the conquered territory with those who lived there prior to the invasion? ScepticWombat (talk) 18:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My main point is this: Once they're there, especially if they've been born there, they have the same right to stay as the other people there. Don't they? And that two wrongs don't make a right is absolutely clear. However, what I started out with saying is that at some point in the not so distant future Tibetan claims will become ridiculous if current demographic trends persist. Unless of course the Tibetans manage to assimilate the Han. Things like that have happened in the past and can happen again. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're still blithely ignoring that these Han Chinese didn't migrate to and settle in a country which even tacitly had invited them. Instead, they essentially arrived as a consequence of a colonisation scheme. If you don't think this needs to be factored in when the question of Tibet's status is decided, it's effectively condoning such colonisation schemes in conjunction with conquest as a legitimate way to acquire new territory. To label as "ridiculous" the opinions of those who not only suffered invasion, but also had to see their country and culture flooded with a tide of cultural and demographic imperialism and colonisation is indeed a might makes right argument. ScepticWombat (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok let's frame it differently... If the Tibetans were to say either "Han don't count, they colonizer" or "Han have to leave, they colonizer", that would be equally as ridiculous as Native Americans saying the same thing about the descendants of all people who arrived after 1492 Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And so, we can just accept that China colonized Tibet exactly so this kind of situation would arise .--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 00:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I started out with: Tibetans are running out of time, because colonizing policies have the effects described above Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And yet, according to you, China using underhanded moves to strip the ability for a formerly free country to demand independence via colonization and imperialism is a-ok.--"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said that. But I think we should first look at what is before we ask ourselves what should be Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What is: A independent nation being invaded by a country which then used a colonization Strategy to replace the existing population of said nation, and then now using the end results of this colonization to justify why tibet should not become a free country. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Well "free" is a relative term. As long as Capitalism exists there is no such thing as a free person. And countries cannot be free. People can. And as for the one thing you comfortably fail to mention: Once they're there they have the same right to stay as anybody else Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So might makes right, and the rest of the world just has to accept that China did bad shit because it would be mean to the people they brought in. --"Paravant" Talk & Contribs 01:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Added nuance
This article addresses Chinese propaganda but fails to address the equally pervasive Western propaganda which portrays Tibet as a paradise of Buddhist equality. I added a bit at the end to cover that, hopefully we can get the ball rolling because I've always cringed at the idiocy of people who make claims about an entire culture to fit with their values and then try to 'force' that culture to comply (i.e. western imperialist hippies creating their own private Tibet) 70.193.54.174 (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I look forward to this discussion. But please don't go overboard and alienate too many people with your stance. Also, have a look at the prior discussion on this article. And welcome to Rationalwiki. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppression of Hui Muslims
So... no mention of how the Tibetans assault local muslims, occasionally burn down the mosques, accuse muslims of cannibalism, the large massacres every decade or so, and the calls for ethnic cleansing? CorruptUser (talk) 05:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite it
There have been new human rights abuses in Tibet recently, and the CCP has upped its propaganda game. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-rights-tibet-exclusive/china-sharply-expands-mass-labor-program-in-tibet-idUSKCN26D0GT --Noobmaster420 (talk) 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If nobody else wants to, I'll get there eventually. 16:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)