4 ms·

Most recent? China is destroying traditional Tibet (which it invaded) through mass migration of ethnic Han.

thaumasiotes 6y ago
Well, it would like to. The Han suffer from altitude-related health problems and die at much, much higher rates than the Tibetans.
- pm90 6y ago
  Wait is this really true? Fascinating if it is. It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land?
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    1. Tibet is high ground. Source of China's rivers and a security nightmare if someone ever puts artillery up there. 2. Nationalistic pride. A lot of modern China's identity is tied up with using the perceived territories of the old Qing empire as a baseline measure for the country's standing in the world. Tibet was part of the Qing empire (disregarding how pre-modern empires controlled territory in arrangements that gave local rulers much more leeway than modern nations) so not having Tibet as part of modern China would be seen as a major defeat. Try asking a Chinese national to explain why the PRC fought to keep Tibet but not Mongolia despite both being part of the old Qing empire and watch the mental gymnastics.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - yorwba 6y ago
      Those strategic considerations explain why China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. It's not clear whether having large numbers of Han Chinese migrate there is necessary or even helpful. (It's not like Han Chinese have never revolted against the government.) The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ...
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        > China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. You're just asking for Tibet to revolt at that point. Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. There was good reason for that. > The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ... Some of them are just assigned as settlers by the government. I don't know how significant the phenomenon is, but e.g. a friend of mine told me that her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang.
        yorwba 6y ago
        > Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. The PRC requires that "The chairman of an autonomous region, the prefect of an autonomous prefecture or the head of an autonomous county shall be a citizen of the nationality exercising regional autonomy in the area concerned." http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372990.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... I'm not sure whether subdivisions in an autonomous area are automatically autonomous as well, but if so, that would require local Tibetan governments at all administrative levels to be lead by Tibetans. That doesn't mean they can't use the old tactic of promoting officials across regional borders to prevent individuals from building up their own little kingdoms. E.g. the current chairman of Tibet is a Tibetan from Yunnan, so technically he isn't ruling his home province. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha > her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang. How does settlement work in that case? Did they give him a plot of land to farm or a job at a SOE or did they simply order him to stay in Xinjiang and find some way to make a living there?
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land? If you're interested in the issue, the term of art is "China proper". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper I asked someone once what the point of China owning Xinjiang was. He responded "we don't want them to attack us". For Tibet, I agree with magicsmoke that it is incredibly significant as the source of both of China's rivers. I can't imagine China willingly ceding control over those.
foobar_ 6y ago
Well that's technically an ethnocide. There's plenty of that happening as well. The funniest pattern you can see in news - everyone talks about the other, while ignoring their own mess. Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Middle East Muslims will complain about Palestine while conveniently ignoring Assyrians.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Cultural genocide is genocide as defined by the UN.
- Chris2048 6y ago
  > Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Are you suggesting that native american genocide isn't a hot topic in America?

Well, it would like to. The Han suffer from altitude-related health problems and die at much, much higher rates than the Tibetans.

pm90 6y ago
Wait is this really true? Fascinating if it is. It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land?
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  1. Tibet is high ground. Source of China's rivers and a security nightmare if someone ever puts artillery up there. 2. Nationalistic pride. A lot of modern China's identity is tied up with using the perceived territories of the old Qing empire as a baseline measure for the country's standing in the world. Tibet was part of the Qing empire (disregarding how pre-modern empires controlled territory in arrangements that gave local rulers much more leeway than modern nations) so not having Tibet as part of modern China would be seen as a major defeat. Try asking a Chinese national to explain why the PRC fought to keep Tibet but not Mongolia despite both being part of the old Qing empire and watch the mental gymnastics.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - yorwba 6y ago
    Those strategic considerations explain why China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. It's not clear whether having large numbers of Han Chinese migrate there is necessary or even helpful. (It's not like Han Chinese have never revolted against the government.) The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ...
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      > China would prefer to keep Tibet under their control, but that could also be achieved by the Tibetan members of the CCP ruling the region, Tibetan members of the PLA patrolling the borders, Tibetan members of the MSS surveilling the population, and so on. You're just asking for Tibet to revolt at that point. Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. There was good reason for that. > The reasons for each individual migrant choosing to go to Tibet instead of staying in their home provinces are more likely to be economic: better-paying jobs in tourism, mining, hydropower, ... Some of them are just assigned as settlers by the government. I don't know how significant the phenomenon is, but e.g. a friend of mine told me that her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang.
      - yorwba 6y ago
        > Obviously you know this, but longstanding imperial Chinese policy was that no official was ever allowed to administer his own home province. The PRC requires that "The chairman of an autonomous region, the prefect of an autonomous prefecture or the head of an autonomous county shall be a citizen of the nationality exercising regional autonomy in the area concerned." http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/15/content_1372990.htm http://www.npc.gov.cn/zgrdw/englishnpc/Constitution/2007-11/... I'm not sure whether subdivisions in an autonomous area are automatically autonomous as well, but if so, that would require local Tibetan governments at all administrative levels to be lead by Tibetans. That doesn't mean they can't use the old tactic of promoting officials across regional borders to prevent individuals from building up their own little kingdoms. E.g. the current chairman of Tibet is a Tibetan from Yunnan, so technically he isn't ruling his home province. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Dalha > her father had been in the army, and upon leaving he was settled in Xinjiang. How does settlement work in that case? Did they give him a plot of land to farm or a job at a SOE or did they simply order him to stay in Xinjiang and find some way to make a living there?
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > It seemed a little weird that China would want to “settle” Tibet considering that the most economically prosperous regions of the Country are on the Coastal regions. What are the incentives to abandon your home and move to a strange land? If you're interested in the issue, the term of art is "China proper". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_proper I asked someone once what the point of China owning Xinjiang was. He responded "we don't want them to attack us". For Tibet, I agree with magicsmoke that it is incredibly significant as the source of both of China's rivers. I can't imagine China willingly ceding control over those.

foobar_ 6y ago

Well that's technically an ethnocide. There's plenty of that happening as well. The funniest pattern you can see in news - everyone talks about the other, while ignoring their own mess. Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Middle East Muslims will complain about Palestine while conveniently ignoring Assyrians.

deathgrips 6y ago
Cultural genocide is genocide as defined by the UN.
Chris2048 6y ago
> Chinese media will bring up Native Americans while American media will bring up Tibet or Honk Kong or Taiwan. Are you suggesting that native american genocide isn't a hot topic in America?