Home > culture, music, Photos, video > 【每日歌曲】中华大家庭 (the Big Chinese Family)

【每日歌曲】中华大家庭 (the Big Chinese Family)

February 16th, 2010 Leave a comment Go to comments

China has 56 ethnic groups. They include Russians, Mongols, Uyghurs, Koreans, and many others. Here is a modern Chinese take on all of them: 中华大家庭 (the Big Chinese Family). The lyrics actually enumerate the groups individually.

Categories: culture, music, Photos, video Tags:
  1. February 20th, 2010 at 11:17 | #1

    The tenor of Chinese discourse about Tibet often seems to imply that Tibetan culture and history are a subset of Chinese culture and history, presumably in order to imply that the ties that bind Tibetan people to China are based in something other than realpolitik. However, a similar claim with regard to some of the other 55 official minorities, particularly the Mongols, Koreans, and Russians, sounds so absurd that no one ever bothers to make it (at least, not in English). “Russian culture is part of Chinese culture. Russian people are Chinese from of old” doesn’t pass the giggle test. If nothing else, there are a lot of Mongols, Koreans, and Russians in the world who will be happy to tell you otherwise. Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of this trope.

  2. February 20th, 2010 at 22:23 | #2

    @Otto,

    Perhaps you ought to learn some Chinese so you can understand what this song is all about. They are simply celebrating their diversity and aspiring towards harmony.

    Your gripe with this “subset” idea is absurd to begin with. Take your way of looking at the world and apply it to any group of people on this planet. Divide that group some more (and I have a feeling that might be your tendency) and reapply your “subset” thinking and I think you still would not be satisfied.

  3. February 21st, 2010 at 15:15 | #3

    yinyang,

    I don’t really understand your response, probably through some fault of my own. I wasn’t referring to anything specifically about this song’s lyrics, which I assume are innocuous taken in isolation.

    When you say, “Take your way of looking at the world and apply it to any group of people on this planet”, do you mean something like, consider the Americans and then say, “Kansan culture is part of American culture. Kansas people are Americans from of old”? Does that idea sound absurd? If not, what do you mean?

  4. August 6th, 2010 at 02:35 | #4

    My point is your “subset” idea is very arbitrary. You can take any group of people and make subsets out of them. It all comes down to your politics. In general, my view of those who are interested in subdividing people are usually nasty themselves.

  5. Non-Native Beijinger Nat
    February 16th, 2011 at 17:40 | #5

    Otto:
    I agree with yinyang about your bias view of the China. China has 56 ethnic groups and are proud of her diversity. It is a fact that there are still Russians, Koreans, Mongolians etc living in for many generations in China. Consequently their cultures are part of the cultures that makes up China. No one in China relegates any of their ethnic group into a subset of anything. What is so gigglish-about that?
    If you can find the time to go into China’s long history, some of the ethnic groups, including those you mentioned did originate in China too. And what is wrong about that? When a country celebrates diversity, that China is moving in the direction of progress.

    For example, the United States recognizes that diversity gives flavor and add richness to people’s lives. Some people may not like it nor feel comfortable with diversity. So they make a law against discrimination. In any country, despite any law, there will always be people who will subtlely try to undermine it for fear of being “taken over.” If only people realize that other’s people’s cultures enhances their lives instead of spending time putting it down or criticising, the world would be a much better place.

    It is absurd for you to go in that direction because you do not like it. Open your mind, and look at things from a positive perspective, and perhaps you will be far happier too.

    An American in Beijing

  6. February 17th, 2011 at 11:04 | #6

    @Non-Native Beijinger Nat

    Well said, and I wish more sane Americans come forth and speak their minds, otherwise the rest of the world think America is full of lunatics.

  7. SilentChinese
    February 17th, 2011 at 11:41 | #7

    @Otto Kerner

    Otto,

    you need to drop the idea that china is a “national-state” in the traditional, post 1919, self-determination, european national state sense.

    China was, is and always will be a civilization state.

  8. February 18th, 2011 at 20:35 | #8

    @Non-Native Beijinger Nat

    There’s nothing wrong with celebrating diversity. What I have a problem with is China swallowing nearby weaker nations, and celebrating diversity afterward doesn’t make it all right, especially not if it’s done in a way that gives a misleading impression of history. When I mentioned a “subset”, I was talking about the idea that Tibet is inherently a part of China, so that to speak of Tibet is to speak of China by definition. Are you sure that no one in China believes this? I’m not sure why you used the term “relegate” into a subset. For comparison, American culture comes directly out of Western European culture, so America is inherently a subset of the West. I never felt like I was being “relegated” to the status of a Westerner, though.

  9. February 18th, 2011 at 20:44 | #9

    @SilentChinese

    Can you explain what the major differences are between the behavior of a nation-state and of a civilisation-state? I’ve never talked to anyone who was able to explain it before Reading Martin Jacques’ famous article on the subject, I see lots of places where he cites differences between China and the West, but it seems more likely to me that these are caused by differences between Chinese and Western culture, rather than by different types of states. It seems like a civilisation-state is just a large nation-state.

    Not that it really matters in this case, since Tibet has never part of a Chinese civilisation any more than it was part of a Chinese nation. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

  10. February 18th, 2011 at 22:15 | #10

    What I have a problem with is China swallowing nearby weaker nations, and celebrating diversity afterward doesn’t make it all right, especially not if it’s done in a way that gives a misleading impression of history.

    Now you are changing the topic. In that case, I suggest you pick a place closer to your home. For example, China’s claim to all of her territories are infinitely more legitimate than America’s of Hawaii, California, Alaska, etc.. Or U.K’s claim to Falkland, etc..

    When I mentioned a “subset”, I was talking about the idea that Tibet is inherently a part of China, so that to speak of Tibet is to speak of China by definition.

    You accept Tibet a part of China or no?

    For comparison, American culture comes directly out of Western European culture, so America is inherently a subset of the West.

    It’s really funny that you are capable of comparing America in this instance on the “culture” aspect, but fail to draw a comparison with respect to “swallowing” far away nations!

  11. February 19th, 2011 at 00:35 | #11

    I am quite aware of the parallel you are referring to, yinyang. The situations are not really all that similar, but neither is a good thing. I have had this conversation many times with pro-CCP-policies people on the internet, but, no matter how many times it is repeated, tu quoque does not become a valid argument.

    Tibet is a cultural region which extends over a large land area, part of which is beyond the PRC border, most notably in Bhutan. However, when people use the term “Tibet”, they usually arbitrarily limit it to the parts on the Chinese side of the border. In that sense, then, Tibet is currently incorporated politically into the PRC. Looked at from a historical perspective, though, Tibet is quite distinct from China. Whether it continues to be politically integrated with China is a question that hopefully the Tibetans themselves will one day be able to decide upon.

    I might ask you the same question, though, yinyang, in a more specific form. Non-Native Beijinger says that no one in China holds the “subset” view that I’m describing. Does that mean that you don’t agree that Tibet is inherently a part of China? I realise that you are actually not located in China, but an earlier post on this blog informs me that it represents the true Chinese view, so I figure you will do fine as a stand-in.

  12. February 19th, 2011 at 01:27 | #12

    @Otto

    Like Allen, I give up on you. Your logic is completely convoluted, and I cannot comprehend you. But one thing is clear – your politics on this issue.

    Whether it continues to be politically integrated with China is a question that hopefully the Tibetans themselves will one day be able to decide upon.

    Until you show the world how to undo America (not that I think you should) or have UK part with Falklands, et., I don’t think you will be able to move an inch on the Chinese.

  13. r v
    February 19th, 2011 at 06:48 | #13

    Otto,

    Swallowing other nations, implies that Tibet was a nation. So far, that assumption of yours is not based on reality.

    Tibet tried to swallow up other nations when it was a military empire, and it imploded.

    Logically, what was “historical Tibet” was not even Tibet, it was the other nations that Tibet swallowed up. And those nations also no longer exist.

    If China swallowed up any thing, it’s those broken pieces after Tibet imploded, more than 1000 years ago.

  14. February 19th, 2011 at 11:37 | #14

    r v,

    Tibet is more than just a nation, it is a civilisation. If there were a Tibetan state, it would be a civilisation-state.

  15. r v
    February 19th, 2011 at 12:52 | #15

    civilization doesn’t equal to nation.

    Lots of civilizations are long dead.

    Tibetan “civilization” was an amalgamation of other CIVILIZATIONS that it tried to swallow up over 1000 years ago, and then it imploded.

    The fact of Tibetan “civilization”‘s existence, is a FACT of those its militant expansionism.

    If China cannot swallow up the broken pieces of Tibet after that, then Tibet had EVEN LESS right to swallow up others in the first place.

    Indeed, if you are truly advocation a pure form of righteous nationhood status, then we must all go back to our original countries.

    You must go back to Europe. Tibetans must go back to Mongolia. And the Chinese, well, fortunately, will still have much of China.

  16. r v
    February 19th, 2011 at 13:39 | #16

    Yajima Yasujiro, a veteran of the Russo-Japanese War, came to Lhasa and, from 1913 to 1919, trained troops and advised on defense against the Chinese. Aoki Bunkyo, a Japanese Buddhist priest, translated Japanese army manuals into Tibetan. He also helped design the Tibetan National Flag by adding to traditional Tibetan symbols a rising sun surrounded by rays. This motif comprised the Japanese cavalry and infantry flags of the day and later became the design for the Japanese Navy and Army Flag during World War II.

  17. February 21st, 2011 at 00:02 | #17

    @r v

    I’m aware that Tibet was originally an empire which conquered a bunch of otherwise foreign countries. Moreover, you may or may not be aware that the process of Tibetanizing the conquered populations continued for a long time afterward. This process never finalized, as there are still, for example, partially Tibetanised Qiang populations in Ngawa and Mongol populations in Qinghai. Muli was a Tibetan-ruled kingdom with a mostly non-Tibetan population. This is actually one of the “civilisation”-type traits of the Tibetan complex: that it continued to have a “gravitational pull” on nearby populations after the empire collapsed.

    More to the point, though, you have misunderstood what I’m suggesting here. I’m not talking about individuals being forced to leave their homes or give up their land. I’m talking about dissolving the political bonds that tie groups of people together given the current facts on the ground.

  18. February 21st, 2011 at 00:27 | #18

    @r v

    I have no idea why you brought up Japanese involvement in Tibet in the early 20th century. As you know, Tibet had declared its independence at this time and was conducting an independent foreign policy. Is this supposed to seem particularly devilish because it is the Japanese at question? Why not embrace the diversity?

  19. r v
    February 21st, 2011 at 05:42 | #19

    “This process never FINALIZED”.

    Perhaps you don’t know what that word means.

    “one of the “civilisation”-type traits of the Tibetan complex”

    A lot of things can be “civilisation”-type traits, don’t make them “civilization”.

    *
    “Tibet had declared its independence at this time”

    With a Japanese designed flag? Gee, real independent there! Great “independent foreign policy”!

  20. silentchinese
    February 21st, 2011 at 08:46 | #20

    Otto Kerner :@SilentChinese
    Can you explain what the major differences are between the behavior of a nation-state and of a civilisation-state? I’ve never talked to anyone who was able to explain it before Reading Martin Jacques’ famous article on the subject, I see lots of places where he cites differences between China and the West, but it seems more likely to me that these are caused by differences between Chinese and Western culture, rather than by different types of states. It seems like a civilisation-state is just a large nation-state.
    Not that it really matters in this case, since Tibet has never part of a Chinese civilisation any more than it was part of a Chinese nation. Can you provide any evidence to the contrary?

    disregarding the details of what M. Jacques’ particulars. This is my take.

    A national-state is born out of the (post 1919-Versaille) european notion (which itself rooted in 19th Century Romanticism) that one ethnic tribe some how has the inailenable right to occupy a geographic land and have right to excercise its own soverignity. ideally the state must be of pure and single ethnic group. hence the excruciating efforts in Versaille to determine ethnic boundaries, and the absurdities and ethnic cleansing that mared the 1920s in areas in eastern and central europe. for example there were millions of “culturally and ethnically germans” living in many areas of the old austro-hungarian empire- for centuries. they were forced to up-root and move back to Germany. why? self-determination of course.

    Civilization State is much more “primative”. almost like an empire. yet it is extremely modern concept. and not unlike what you have in America today.

    Ethnic and tribal affiliation does not matter. as long as you were part of the same cultural mix. and in china, that means obidience to the emperor and that you and your people identify themselves as part of the same historic pantheon. Let me give you an example:
    Han Dynasty was widely regarded by mostly western pesudo-historians as the first dynasty were the distinctive “Han” ethnic group is first identified and self-identified. well after shortly after the reign of Wu Di or the Martial Emperor, which is famous for military campaigns (interceded with tributary marriages) against (Xiongnu/ Other wise known as Huns) of the steppes, the Han adopted an concillatory approach and Xiongnu/Huns split into two groups, the Northern group begin its migration towards the west, the souther group submitted to the Han Emperor. The Changyu or the head king of the southern group cited that his mother was Han (the result of tributary marriages) and that it is time for peace. the Han Emperor in turn granted some of them the use of Emperor family’s last name: Liu. They kept their distinctive “Hunness” upto and include the Three-Kingdoms period which is the end of Han dynasty. but shortly after that they ceased to see themselves as a distinct tribal group and as best as we can tell become part what we known as “Han ethnic group” today. Thus our fellow Charles Liu here could very well be the descendent of the Huns. but you wouldn’t know that from talking to him.
    and he prob couldn’t tell that himself. and what some think as Han culture norms may very well came from the HUns!

    America is a melting pot and we often praised that as a melting pot. Hitler derided americans as a Mongrel Race. Well, China is a melting pot, what you see today as ethnic homogenity (93% Han) is the result of 2500 years of continuous ethnic mixing and stiring of that pot. If you think china today is wipping out culture and ethnic groups and committing (as DL puts it) cultural genocide, then america is just as guilty and deserve to be condemned (not w.r.t. to its sordid history with Native Americans, but with its Melting pot regarding Italian/German/Irish/Chinese/Anglo/African/…etc. all these hypenated immigrants)

    As to Tibet:
    Just to bring up an simple example:
    On couple years ago the forbidden city had its first major renovation in many years. the excavators found placed insied of these ancient roof beam of all major palace buildings, package of religious items to warn off evil spirits (this practice is ditinctively “Chinese”, my old family home in Southern china has old coins on roof beams to bring good luck). what they found in the package were Taoist charms, Confucist texts, and Tibetan Buddhist Sutras, as well as Manchurian Shamanist Charms that placed there later. now rationalize these facts with your statement that “Tibet has never part of a Chinese civilisation”.
    you can’t.

  21. silentchinese
    February 21st, 2011 at 08:54 | #21

    Just to be clear on this part:

    ” If you think china today is wipping out culture and ethnic groups and committing (as DL puts it) cultural genocide, then america is just as guilty and deserve to be condemned (not w.r.t. to its sordid history with Native Americans, but with its Melting pot regarding Italian/German/Irish/Chinese/Anglo/African/…etc. all these hypenated immigrants)”

    China today btw does not have a overt (or covert, as far as I can tell) program of integration (as oppose to America today…where if you send your kids to schools then It has to pledge allegence and learn about how wonderful it is to be part of America the big melting pot)

    In China the kids belong to major ethnic groups can have an education in their own languages up to and include College levels. I dear to say There is nothing like this ANYWHERE in the world. what china has for its ethnic policy as far as I can tell is opposite of “melting-pot”., it actually tries to preserve diversity and distinctiveness in face of Modernization and “Westernization”…
    Hey, those tibetan kids were not “Sinized” when they are wearing jeans and smoke marborols!

  22. February 21st, 2011 at 16:46 | #22

    @silentchinese

    Can you clarify what you mean by “you and your people identify themselves as part of the same historic pantheon”? That seems like the crux of the matter, since there is no longer an emperor to give obedience to.

    I don’t think that finding Tibetan artifacts in the Forbidden City proves much. I never said there was no cultural exchange between Tibet and China, and the Aisin-Gioros who lived in the Forbidden City were unusually cosmopolitan. When I say that Tibet was not part of Chinese civilisation, I mean that it had a completely distinct literary, religious, and philosophical tradition. Laozi and Confucius are not major figures in Tibetan thought. Chinese Buddhism is much more influential in Korea, Japan, and Korea than in Tibet. A variety of cultural and lifestyle differences are also salient, although these are harder to get ahold of and very a great deal from place to place within China.

  23. February 21st, 2011 at 16:59 | #23

    @silentchinese

    Tibetan-language education in the PRC is quite limited after the level of primary school. I have a hard time believing it is much better for other ethnic minorities in China.

  24. February 21st, 2011 at 17:03 | #24

    @r v

    I meant a foreign policy independent of Beijing. Naturally, they wanted allies and advisers from other powerful countries in the world. Their best bet would have been an alliance with imperial Russia or Japan, but that didn’t prove to be an option, so they were stuck with the British.

  25. r v
    February 21st, 2011 at 17:12 | #25

    Otto,

    Actually, that just proves that Tibet was being dictated to by others, and did not have independence.

    End of story.

  26. r v
    February 21st, 2011 at 17:19 | #26

    Quite obvious that Tibet was passed between other nations. Even its flag was one marked by Japanese Imperialists as one of theirs.

  27. February 21st, 2011 at 18:13 | #27

    How does it prove that? There were like three Japanese people in Tibet at any given time, and they were all gone by 1920 or so. How could they possibly dictate to the Tibetans?

  28. silentvoice
    February 22nd, 2011 at 04:55 | #28

    Otto:

    I’ve been watching on the sidelines and this is at least the 2nd thread you’ve hijacked to talk about Tibet.

  29. r v
    February 22nd, 2011 at 05:33 | #29

    3 Japanese in Tibet was enough to dictate a new flag design on them, plus the entire expanding Japanese Empire in Asia behind them to make a point.

    They were gone AFTER they made their dictates in Tibet happen.

    If they were gone BEFORE the flag design, you might have had a point. But NO!

  30. February 22nd, 2011 at 05:35 | #30

    @silentvoice

    I made one comment about it, and since then I have been responding to other peoples’ responses to me. I make no apologies. Tibet is a topic which is of interest to me, and, judging by their responses, several other people.

  31. r v
    February 22nd, 2011 at 05:50 | #31

    OK,

    I’ll keep whipping the dead horse, along to the tunes of that broken drum. 🙂

  32. silentchinese
    February 22nd, 2011 at 06:37 | #32

    Otto Kerner :@silentchinese
    Can you clarify what you mean by “you and your people identify themselves as part of the same historic pantheon”? That seems like the crux of the matter, since there is no longer an emperor to give obedience to.
    I don’t think that finding Tibetan artifacts in the Forbidden City proves much. I never said there was no cultural exchange between Tibet and China, and the Aisin-Gioros who lived in the Forbidden City were unusually cosmopolitan. When I say that Tibet was not part of Chinese civilisation, I mean that it had a completely distinct literary, religious, and philosophical tradition. Laozi and Confucius are not major figures in Tibetan thought. Chinese Buddhism is much more influential in Korea, Japan, and Korea than in Tibet. A variety of cultural and lifestyle differences are also salient, although these are harder to get ahold of and very a great deal from place to place within China.

    The emperor is the chinese state.

    That statement applies 500 years ago as well as today.

    “you and your people identify themselves as part of the same historic pantheon”.
    meaning recognizing and accepted that this is a shared history and they share a common and mixed ancestery. mythical to modern. In some what of a closer anology to you may be. The original Anglo-Saxons conqueror the British Isds over the Celtic tribes themselves inturn get conquerored by Normans. Now I do not see people in Britain shouting Normans go home or people in blue face paint scalping anglo-saxons. same type of thing.

    as to Tibet as having a “completely distinct literary, religious, and philosophical tradition”.
    I think you are falling into the national-state trap again.

    Otto Kerner :@silentchinese
    Tibetan-language education in the PRC is quite limited after the level of primary school. I have a hard time believing it is much better for other ethnic minorities in China.

    I had a uighar friend who finished most of his high school in uyghar. I do not have a hard time believing.

  33. silentchinese
    February 22nd, 2011 at 06:51 | #33

    Otto Kerner :How does it prove that? There were like three Japanese people in Tibet at any given time, and they were all gone by 1920 or so. How could they possibly dictate to the Tibetans?

    the point is they tried the same thing w.r.t. Puyi/ Zhang Zuoling and Manchuria and Mongolia, and other chinese provinces.

    the recipe book goes:
    urging the local warlord/ leaders to go independent.
    give money and arms support.
    economic ties.
    full fledge takeover.

    they succeeded in Manchuria and nearly suceeded in Inner Mongolia and northern china.

    all the talk of nice cultural history aside.
    the point is chinese sees Tibet in the same pattern as one of the provinces in the factuous near modern chinese history.

    *local independence was first to free from Qing Emperor (hunan/jiangxi etc all declared independence one time or another) and self protection.
    *warlordism
    *united under repub of china.

  34. r v
    February 22nd, 2011 at 07:12 | #34

    “Tibetan-language education in the PRC is quite limited after the level of primary school.”

    Compared to what?

    Tibetan-language education in Tibet prior to the founding of PRC was virtually non-existent. More than 90% of Tibetans were illiterate.

    What? Today is not good enough by your standards?

    Well, Tibetan-language education in Canada is also “quite limited”.

  35. SilentChinese
    February 22nd, 2011 at 08:44 | #35

    @r v

    yes,

    and If i was a Tejano parent living in texas I do not have the option to send my kid to a school using primarily spanish to teach. and I was un-lucky enough to have lived in Arizona I would risk deportation despite the fact that my ancestors may have lived in this area before Arizona became state in US!

    I want to see people Otto up in arms over these things. I don;t see that.
    Instead they are fixiating on the nebulous pesudo rumors that minority in china don’t get education in their own language beyond “primary school”.

  36. r v
    February 22nd, 2011 at 10:47 | #36

    “I meant a foreign policy independent of Beijing. Naturally, they wanted allies and advisers from other powerful countries in the world. Their best bet would have been an alliance with imperial Russia or Japan, but that didn’t prove to be an option, so they were stuck with the British.”

    “STUCK” is the key word, but one of the many words that could be used to define Tibetan “acquiescence” to outside dictate.

    Did any Tibetan policies at the time indicated anything more than their mere “acquiescence” (or yielding) to dictates from OUTSIDE of Tibet??!!

    NOPE! Hence, it proves that Tibet was not independent. (A Tibetan serf is also “stuck” between different Tibetan Masters who owned him, but a Tibetan serf cannot be said to be “free” or independent.)

  37. March 2nd, 2011 at 18:47 | #37

    silentchinese :

    The emperor is the chinese state.
    That statement applies 500 years ago as well as today.

    This is basically my point. What it all comes down to is the demand for loyalty to the state. Not a state of any Tibetan’s choosing, of course, but the state that has the most guns and can tell you what to do, so you’d better be loyal to it. Now, all states demand loyalty and they all have more guns than you do, but that has very little to do with civilisation, so it’s pointless to say that this somehow establishes that all the subjects are part of the same civilisation. What makes China special is the bizarre spectacle of an empire pretending to be a “people’s republic”.

    meaning recognizing and accepted that this is a shared history and they share a common and mixed ancestery. mythical to modern.

    Do you have any reason to believe that Tibetans (or Chinese people, for that matter) before the 20th century ever believed that? Are there are any Tibetan myths describing their descent from a common provenance as the Chinese?

    In some what of a closer anology to you may be. The original Anglo-Saxons conqueror the British Isds over the Celtic tribes themselves inturn get conquerored by Normans. Now I do not see people in Britain shouting Normans go home or people in blue face paint scalping anglo-saxons. same type of thing.

    Almost anyone can see the differences between these two situations. You’ve had a while to think about it. Anything spring to mind? Your analogy implies that the main problem in Tibet is that Tibetan and Chinese civilians are unable to live together peacefully. Where did you get this impression? Is March 14, 2008 the only day in Tibetan history, and are Lhasa and Xiahe the only the locations in Tibet?

    as to Tibet as having a “completely distinct literary, religious, and philosophical tradition”.
    I think you are falling into the national-state trap again.

    I was explaining what I mean when I say “civilisation”. I think you are using the word erroneously. this dictionary defines civilisation as “b : the culture characteristic of a particular time or place”, so I was talking about cultural traits.

  38. March 2nd, 2011 at 19:17 | #38

    r v :
    3 Japanese in Tibet was enough to dictate a new flag design on them, plus the entire expanding Japanese Empire in Asia behind them to make a point.
    They were gone AFTER they made their dictates in Tibet happen.
    If they were gone BEFORE the flag design, you might have had a point. But NO!

    You have read into the situation whatever you wished to read into it. Explain to me how three Japanese people could force the Tibetan government to do anything? The Tibetans were very interested in getting support and advice from the rest of the world, so why would they be unwilling to accept a suggestion for a flag? You are assuming that they had to be forced to accept it.

    silentchinese :

    Otto Kerner :How does it prove that? There were like three Japanese people in Tibet at any given time, and they were all gone by 1920 or so. How could they possibly dictate to the Tibetans?

    the point is they tried the same thing w.r.t. Puyi/ Zhang Zuoling and Manchuria and Mongolia, and other chinese provinces.
    the recipe book goes:
    urging the local warlord/ leaders to go independent.
    give money and arms support.
    economic ties.
    full fledge takeover.
    they succeeded in Manchuria and nearly succeeded in Inner Mongolia and northern china.

    I know that you believe this to be the case, but I am asking you to give even a small amount of evidence that it is true. This may have been what the Japanese government wished to do, but I am not interested in conjectures right now. In Manchukuo, the Japanese military occupied the country, a new government was put in place, and the ministries all had Japanese vice-ministers who effectively ran the government. In Tibet, there were all of three Japanese people present, exactly one soldier was present (occupying such a big country all by himself! how impressive!), the existing, centuries-old government continued to govern, and there were, of course, no Japanese representatives in the government. How can you compare the two situations?

    the point is chinese sees Tibet in the same pattern as one of the provinces in the factious near modern chinese history.
    *local independence was first to free from Qing Emperor (hunan/jiangxi etc all declared independence one time or another) and self protection.
    *warlordism
    *united under repub of china.

    Once again, I know that a lot of people think that’s true, but I want to know if it actually is true. Is there any reason to think that the Tibetan declaration of independence is actually comparable to those of Chinese provinces? How many of the Chinese provinces declared not only that they were now independent, but that they had been independent all along (the Dalai Lama’s declaration in 1913 states, “I, therefore, left Lhasa with my ministers for the Indo-Tibetan border, hoping to clarify to the Manchu emperor by wire that the existing relationship between Tibet and China had been that of patron and priest and had not been based on the subordination of one to the other”)? How many were ruled by a monarchy that had existed before the founding of the Qing dynasty and continued to exist after the fall of the Qing? How many declared their independence a year after the emperor’s abdication and the founding of the republic? How many of them were never ruled by government that was even nominally loyal to the Republic of China?

  39. March 2nd, 2011 at 19:32 | #39

    SilentChinese :
    @r v
    yes,
    and If i was a Tejano parent living in texas I do not have the option to send my kid to a school using primarily spanish to teach. and I was un-lucky enough to have lived in Arizona I would risk deportation despite the fact that my ancestors may have lived in this area before Arizona became state in US!
    I want to see people Otto up in arms over these things. I don;t see that.
    Instead they are fixiating on the nebulous pesudo rumors that minority in china don’t get education in their own language beyond “primary school”.

    What makes you think that you know how I feel about immigration policy or bilingual education in the U.S., whether I am or am not up in arms about it? Cite some sources, if you can. Were you expecting me to start protesting about the treatment of Tejanos in Arizona in the comments section of a blog about China? Or is it that you are just making stuff up about me in order to make some kind of point?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.