History, why I am so poor at it (sequel).

James Koo

Dear Lighters,

Last Memorial weekend, I wrote about why my history was so poor as I found there are different versions of history. I cited one version history (mainly British) claiming Tibet was an independent nation. A barrage of emails from angry Lighters claiming me either stupid, or ignorant or both. They stop short of calling me a Chinese traitor or worse (took into consideration that I am a Lighter).

Never took a "No" seriously (stubborn in old age), I began to study more about this subject. I found a fellow Lighter, an former professor (name  withheld) is very knowledgeable about this, and he wrote a five pages dissertation? on this subject. However, after reading his article, I am still confused (way over my head). The only question I have is that why this was not taught in Pui Ching? Here is the condensed version of his scholarly article:

The earliest encounter between Han Chinese and Tibetans dated back to Tang Dynasty. Intermarriage between the royalty, and broken promises led to war.

During the Yuan Dynasty, Mongols conquered both Tibet and China. Han Chinese used this fact as the beginning of Chinese sovereignty of Tibet. My former professor Lighter questions this logic as Tibetans helped Mongols to 
conquer China hence they were placed above Hans in the Yuan social structure.

When Ming Dynasty displaced the Mongols, Tibetans swore allegiance to Ming emperor, and exchanged presents. Ming Dynasty did not exercise the type of control required for a "Modern day definition of sovereign."

Military conquest of Tibet occurred during Qing Dynasty and established a Dalai Lama loyal to Qing, and a permanent office (zhu zang da chen) in Tibet with few tens officials and supported by few hundred soldiers. The Tibetans superficially paid respect to this office while de-facto ignored it. To the Tibetans, they never lost their independence or power of the 
self rule. They tolerated the Han Chinese for practical reasons. This relationship lasted until the British entered the picture.

British entered Tibet with acquiescence of the Qing court due to their painful experience with the British, while Tibetans strongly opposed it, and asked for help with no avail. Tibet lost a war with the British in 1889, Qing court granted British limited rights in Tibet but was ignored by  Tibetans. British armed force entered Tibet again in 1903 forced Tibetan 
essentially to renounce Qing sovereignty over Tibet. In 1906, and 1907, the British signed treaties with Qing and Russia defined relationship between China and Tibet as suzerainty instead of sovereignty.? (Lighters get your Webster out).

In 1913, shortly after overthrown of Qing Dynasty, a meeting between China, Tibet, and British were held in Simla, with British insisted on Tibet participating as an independent nation. The meeting failed while British and Tibet jointly declared not to recognize Chinese suzerainty unless China 
signed the Simla treaty, which China never did.

The Simla Conference constituted a recognition by both British and China of Tibet's sovereignty and of its capacity to negotiate and independently enter into treaties on equal basis with other states so claimed a Tibet Independent (TI) organization.

Simla Conference ends in discord: Tibet and Britain agree to Chinese suzerainty over Tibet only if China agrees to Tibetan autonomy. China refuses to ratify pact, thus leaving Tibet "independent status unchanged." so claims another pro-TI organization.

Mao sent troops into Tibet in 1951, and compelled Dalai Lama to sign the agreement for peaceful liberation of Tibet, and Han Chinese has been exercising sovereignty since then.

Now here is this ex-professor Lighter's questions on this subject (NOT mine), and he will entertain questions or discussions:

"Even that a significant fraction of Tibetans don't want to be called Chinese?" for whatever reasons, is it not beneath the dignity of a great people with a proud ancient culture to compel Tibetans to be Chinese? Should we not ask ourselves why, given all the advantage Tibet supposedly enjoys for being a part of China, don't Tibetans want to be Chinese? For 
those of us in U.S. and are American citizens, I dare say that none of us were compelled by the American government to become American citizens. Should we not asked the question as proud Chinese that if there is something we should demand of the conduct of the Chinese government such that Tibetans 
would willingly and gladly be called Chinese?"

"Nor those who believe that every inch of the Chinese territory should be defended or reclaimed without exception, how would they justify the fact that Diaoyutai is still under Japanese control and flies the Japanese flag. Is it because the poor Tibetans are weak and have nothing to entice us Chinese with, cannot offer us these rich and low interest loans, that we, 
the Han Chinese insist on sovereignty and effective control? Is it consistent with our Chinese dignity to bully the weak and kowtow to the rich without principle?"

"After surveying the Tibet-Han Chinese history and interaction, one gets a distinct impression that Tibetans are a fiercely cultural/religious and independent-minded people. While Tibet was strong during Tang Dynasty, Tibetans expressed their mind militarily. During the past three centuries, Tibetans were feeble or even impotent militarily, economically, and diplomatically. They did what we Han Chinese would do in similar situation, namely, creating confusion and refusing to recognize reality. Remember the famous Ah Q? Tibetans used language difference and British unfamiliarity with local geography to avoid being cornered to admit defeat until Mao finally succeeded in 1951."