Dalai Lama wants to expel millions of Chinese, from Qinghai province and Sichuan Options

[bear11]

http://www.dalailama.com/messages/tibet/fi...oint-peace-plan

Dalai Lama
Today, in the whole of Tibet 7.5 million Chinese settlers have already been sent, outnumbering the Tibetan population of 6 million. In central and western Tibet, now referred to by the Chinese as the "Tibet Autonomous Region", Chinese sources admit the 1.9 million Tibetans already constitute a minority of the region's population. These numbers do not take the estimated 300,000-500,000 troops in Tibet into account - 250,000 of them in so-called Tibet Autonomous Region.

For the Tibetans to survive as a people, it is imperative that the population transfer is stopped and Chinese settlers return to China. Otherwise, Tibetans will soon be no more than a tourist attraction and relic of a noble past.

He is really making a lot of distortions and lies.
He has his own definition of Tibet which includes whole of Qinghai, half of Sichuan, and some other provinces, all of these areas were not even part of Tibet before 1949, then he claims that all of Han Chinese there are settlers and that all need to be expelled.

It is amazing that this guy got Nobel peace prize and even some western politicians meet with him.

That would be one of the biggest ethnic cleansing in recent history. Too bad he is too weak. Maybe China should expel all 2,5 million Tibetans from Qinghai and Sichuan to Tibet, in fact it should do that with useless monks.


But that wont happen, Russians expelled Chinese from 64 villages while China gives Russians in China a status of ethnic minority, Chinese in Mongolia cant even walk on the streets because they could be beaten by Mongolian Nazis , and they also ethnically cleansed Mongolia expelling Chinese while China gives Mongols in China an autonomous region.

This post has been edited by bear11: Jan 23 2012, 03:36 PM

[newties21]

So sad that he is so obsessed about race......

Btw....Tibetans are not going away anytime soon....they wont be extincted.....they wont be gone....they wont go to museum.......

It's not wrong wanting to preserve your race and your culture....but have some little bit of realistic perspective....don't be so exaggerating......

Tibetans are not going to be dead, but at the same time, they wont be able to live like in 19th century anymore.
Today is 21st century.
The clock just cant be turned back.
They have to open up, accept the outside world, which by the way, also include lots of foreign tourists of various
nationalities and races.
Those race warriors who want to turn the clock to 19th century purity just dont understand it.

Because they dont understand, they exaggerate and embellish their fears.

Btw, why are they not saying anything about Dharamsala and all those other areas in India where Tibetan descends live ?
I worry more about them if I were them....because the distance to Indians anthropologically is greater.......and I wont be surprised if within the next 1,2,3, generations, there would be erosion of culture and even intermixing with native Indians.....

Guess they cant open their mouth about that......they have to choose which race to pick......

This post has been edited by newties21: Jan 16 2012, 10:51 AM

[faydabakery]

So sad that he is so obsessed about race......

Btw....Tibetans are not going away anytime soon....they wont be extincted.....they wont be gone....they wont go to museum.......

It's not wrong wanting to preserve your race and your culture....but have some little bit of realistic perspective....don't be so exaggerating......

Tibetans are not going to be dead, but at the same time, they wont be able to live like in 19th century anymore.
Today is 21st century.
The clock just cant be turned back.
They have to open up, accept the outside world, which by the way, also include lots of foreign tourists of various
nationalities and races.
Those race warriors who want to turn the clock to 19th century purity just dont understand it.

Because they dont understand, they exaggerate and embellish their fears.

Btw, why are they not saying anything about Dharamsala and all those other areas in India where Tibetan descends live ?
I worry more about them if I were them....because the distance to Indians anthropologically is greater.......and I wont be surprised if within the next 1,2,3, generations, there would be erosion of culture and even intermixing with native Indians.....

Guess they cant open their mouth about that......they have to choose which race to pick......

I think everyone is obsessed about race. You forget about "Han Chinese this and Han Chinese that?" And that's within the Chinese population.

But again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

Discussing the social structure of Tibet inevitably leads to difficulties with defining terms. Not only may serf and feudalism be Western terms inappropriate for Asian use but the geography and peoples of Tibet vary according to interpreter. The lack of agreement of the various sides as to terminology highlights that the 'Serfdom in Tibet' controversy is a politicised debate, with the term 'feudal serfdom' largely being used by the People's Republic of China as a justification for their taking control in Tibet. According to the PRC:

...there was a historically imperative need for the progress of Tibetan society and the happiness of the Tibetan people to expel the imperialists and shake off the yoke of feudal serfdom. The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought hope for the deeply distressed Tibetan people. In conforming to the law of historical development and the interests of the Tibetan people, the Central People's Government worked actively to bring about Tibet's peaceful liberation. After that, important policies and measures were adopted for Tibet's Democratic Reform, regional autonomy, large-scale modernization and reform and opening-up.[9]

However, the Tibetan government in exile responds:

...the Chinese justifications make no sense. First of all, international law does not accept justifications of this type. No country is allowed to invade, occupy, annex and colonize another country just because its social structure does not please it. Secondly, the PRC is responsible for bringing more suffering in the name of liberation. Thirdly, necessary reforms were initiated and Tibetans are quite capable of doing so.[10]



The Tibetan government does have a point. Example - should the US stay in Iraq and Afghanistan because they're nation building and raising education levels and trying to get those local tribes to get along (in addition to the obsessive terrorist hunting)? Does the Chinese really belong there because they've improved the quality of lives there? Let's face it, China just wants Tibet for its resources, not to really make people there happy.

[devils666]

I think everyone is obsessed about race. You forget about "Han Chinese this and Han Chinese that?" And that's within the Chinese population.

But again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

Discussing the social structure of Tibet inevitably leads to difficulties with defining terms. Not only may serf and feudalism be Western terms inappropriate for Asian use but the geography and peoples of Tibet vary according to interpreter. The lack of agreement of the various sides as to terminology highlights that the 'Serfdom in Tibet' controversy is a politicised debate, with the term 'feudal serfdom' largely being used by the People's Republic of China as a justification for their taking control in Tibet. According to the PRC:

...there was a historically imperative need for the progress of Tibetan society and the happiness of the Tibetan people to expel the imperialists and shake off the yoke of feudal serfdom. The founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 brought hope for the deeply distressed Tibetan people. In conforming to the law of historical development and the interests of the Tibetan people, the Central People's Government worked actively to bring about Tibet's peaceful liberation. After that, important policies and measures were adopted for Tibet's Democratic Reform, regional autonomy, large-scale modernization and reform and opening-up.[9]

However, the Tibetan government in exile responds:

...the Chinese justifications make no sense. First of all, international law does not accept justifications of this type. No country is allowed to invade, occupy, annex and colonize another country just because its social structure does not please it. Secondly, the PRC is responsible for bringing more suffering in the name of liberation. Thirdly, necessary reforms were initiated and Tibetans are quite capable of doing so.[10]



The Tibetan government does have a point. Example - should the US stay in Iraq and Afghanistan because they're nation building and raising education levels and trying to get those local tribes to get along (in addition to the obsessive terrorist hunting)? Does the Chinese really belong there because they've improved the quality of lives there? Let's face it, China just wants Tibet for its resources, not to really make people there happy.

Is that the case for Hawaii? Remeber Hawaii was an independent nation with a Queen and royal court. The US decided they didn't like Hawaii's antiquated system and decided to take it over. The only difference is that Hawaii is like the 3rd world country compared to America. At least living standards improved in Tibet.

[faydabakery]

Is that the case for Hawaii? Remeber Hawaii was an independent nation with a Queen and royal court. The US decided they didn't like Hawaii's antiquated system and decided to take it over. The only difference is that Hawaii is like the 3rd world country compared to America. At least living standards improved in Tibet.

Exactly. Similar case. The population of Hawaii was infused with tons of Americans. Why would Hawaii secede when the new Americans living there could outvote the natives?

[devils666]

Exactly. Similar case. The population of Hawaii was infused with tons of Americans. Why would Hawaii secede when the new Americans living there could outvote the natives?

I agree. There are tons of Americans who have hijacked Hawaii and stomped out any Independence movements.

But in China, hardly any Han's live in Tibet. The majority of Tibetans live in Sichuan province which is NOT PART OF TIBET. Those news articles about riots all said they happened in Sichaun, NOT TIBET - unfortunately these idiot China haters don't know the difference. So does that give Tibetans the right to take over Sichuan province? It would be like Native Hawaiians migrating to california and demanding soveriegnty.

This post has been edited by devils666: Jan 29 2012, 09:50 AM