RE: Tibet WAS,IS,and ALWAYS WILL BE a part of China

This is my response to a very well done (cough) Chinese propaganda video about how Tibet was always a part of China, assuming that history itself began in the 18th century.
Here is a link to the video, here is a link to the poster's profile, and a link to the Tibetan Government in Exile's website. I can add more info if needed.

Because the right of conquest is NOT legally binding, here is my rebuttal (I wrote this as I watched the video, so it is somewhat of a stream-of-conscious. Not that I am encouraging viewing of this stuff, but it puts the rebuttal into some perspective).

--------------------------------------------------------

"Fact" 1: Every nation is made up of a patchwork of ethnic groups. But not every nation favors one over all the others and colonizes the minorities with that one minority.

"Fact" 2: You say Tibet has been a part of China for thousands of years, and yet the Yuan dynasty began only 700 years ago. And for most of the Ming dynasty Tibet was INDEPENDENT as a TRIBUTARY to China. Maps mean nothing. I can post a map showing the US as part of Britain, does that make it right? It was only in the 1700s when Qianlong defeated the Dzungars did Tibet actually become closer to China. And if Tibet was, is, and always will be a part of China, then WHY did the People's Republic have to invade it in the first place? You do not need to invade something that is permanently your territory. Furthermore, Tibet was made a part of China through conquest at the same time that Khwarezm, Persia, Korea, etc all were. Are they any more a part of China now than you consider Tibet to be? According to you, the right of conquest is a legal way to claim legitimate ownership of a territory. Therefore, if the United States invaded China and annexed the country, by your definition we would be the legal owners, because we conquered it.

No, that is not legitimacy. It is you posting a bunch of maps and claims presented as facts. Tibet became part of China in 1950. The United States was first colonized in the 1600s (even before Qianlong). Canada was colonized even before that.

The natives are free; they have equal rights to what any US citizen has. Which is more than you can say for Tibetans. Once you give Inner Mongolia back to the Mongols, Manchuria back to the Manchus, Xinjiang back to the Uyghurs, Xi Xia back to the Tanguts, Dali back to the Bai, and restore land to the countless ethnicities you have assimilated, then we shall out of [sic] America/Oceania in no time.

"Fact" 3: unsourced statements and pictures do not back up a ridiculous claim.

"Fact" 4: Slavery was not confined to Tibet only. It is estimated that in 1930 there were about 4 million child slaves in China proper. Furthermore, every state in history has practiced slavery at some time in its history. That does not mean it should be oppressed. The British were slavers once, and the Arabs ran a massive slave trade for a thousand years. If Tibet should be oppressed for slavery, then China itself, which also deals in slaves, should be oppressed too.

The United States promised to be the "Land of the free" while still practicing slavery. Thus proving that a nation does not remain completely static for centuries, and that Tibet would not revert to the exact state it was before the invasion. The scars of Chinese occupation would leave an impact.

"Fact" 5: Wow, the US funding an enemy of their enemy? What a strange concept that definitely has not been done countless times before over the decades.

The Indian government was not forced to accept the Dalai Lama, they welcomed him.

"Fact" 6: Does that excuse the hundreds of thousands or millions of Tibetans killed by the Chinese during their occupation? And the Chinese GDP was 10.17 trillion in 2006, so they only spend .4% of the GDP on this stuff.

Showing pictures of trains is great, but building those does not seem to help the many who still live in poverty. And if the Chinese withdrew, do you think they would destroy EVERY SINGLE piece of architecture and infrastructure they have built? It would remain there, so this does not help your argument.

Texas is not comparable to the Tibetan situation. The Texans VOTED to join the Union, something they did voluntarily. I doubt many Tibetans would have voted to join China had they been given the opportunity. They were the same culture, same language, no oppression or forced assimilation. Scotland also joined the UK of its own free will, when the Stuart kings became kings of England.

Again with leaving America? Stop being a hypocrite. Australia is repairing the relations with the natives; the PM apologized for it recently. You cannot chastise other nations for doing what your own state did countless times too. Why do you think the Han are everywhere? Is that a natural thing? No, it happened over time, the same way it always does. The ethnic Chinese should leave Singapore, leave Taiwan, leave Indonesia, and everywhere else they have settled over the centuries.

So you show pictures of the Tibetans fighting Chinese occupation, and comment on 100 deaths. Yet your own government has caused a thousand times that much suffering in Tibet. And what about China's support of the genocidal Sudanese government? Is that commendable, as long as it is not the United States doing it?

No one could break China apart? That's what they said about the British Empire. And China can fall apart, just look at the Warlord Era. Nothing lasts forever, dead men rise up never. You are already becoming what your forefathers practically ruined China to avoid becoming, congratulations. Good luck making the transition from low-wage gruntwork economy to a modern, capitalistic one. How does 1 billion people demanding 50K a year sound? More than your GDP, good luck with that.

Open your eyes: China is not some utopian paradise. Just because your assimilation of other people happened longer ago than ours does not excuse it.

Welcome to the Kingdom

Welcome to the Kindom of America, where the rich get richer and everybody else remains static at their expense.

Remember the good old days when anyone with a dream could become President of the United States? Of course you don't. Every President has been a millionaire since the term of Harry S Truman, and he only got the Presidency as FDR's VP. Before Truman, the Roosevelt Family was very wealthy (in fact, FDR's grandfather Warren Delano II made over a million dollars in China in the 19th century). His predecessor, Herbert Hoover is rumored to have attempted to flee the country with $5 million worth of gold.

Now, I ask you: could any of these men have become the president without the enormous sums of money provide by their familial wealth? I highly doubt it. Frequently around campaign season one sees the news of fund-raising, such as Hilary Clinton's. Now, $20 million does not seem like an amount of money needed that would allow anyone to become President. Even Ron Paul's laughable 2008 campaign raised millions of dollars, and his was one of the least popular.

What this means is that hardly anyone can become president. For example, we have had two Roosevelts, two Bushes, and possibly two Clintons. Each of these pairs are from the same three families (albeit the last one by marriage), all millionaire aristocrats. If an average American attempted to compete with them, they would be laughed out of the country. So what we have now is basically a plutocracy. The rich are elected by the people, for themselves.

This obviously means there is something wrong with the system. How can a country founded on secularism and freedom for all people to do all things (eventually) retain such an anachronistic thing as a plutocratic presidency? The rich rule traditionally because they are exactly that: rich people with enough money to avoid having to do the work the middle and lower classes labor at.

Is this the best system? Of course not. There are countless nations with better government systems, and most of these countries are significantly better-off in other aspects as well. Take universal healthcare as an example. The United States does not have it, while every country in Europe save for Kosovo and Belarus has it. Well, you might say, it is because of the population difference. Smaller countries can better-afford universal health care. And that is partially true. However, even India is attempting to create a universal health care. A country with three times our population, and 1/6th of the global population is doing it, and yet we are not. Just another indication that the richest men aren't always the best leaders.

However, what method of government would better-suit the USA is up to debate. One compelling possibility is that of meritocracy, a system in which people in positions of power obtain said by their ability (or merit, hence the name). This system prevents assumption of power due to wealth, familial connections, or empty charisma. Theoretically, a meritocracy is one of the best possible government systems. It is ruled by those most able to rule. Of course, communism works too, in theory.

Meritocracy will be explored in more depth at a later date. Thank you for your time.