Tibet wasn't ours, says Chinese scholar (leading Chinese historian).
pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org
HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the committee that
advises on official Chinese history textbooks has broken step with the
official Chinese line on historical sovereignty over Tibet and said that to
claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom "has always been a part of China"
would be a "defiance of history".
In an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, 62,
director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography and the Research
Centre for Historical Geographic Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai,
states that while considering how big China was during the Tang Dynasty (7th
to 10th century), "we cannot include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was
ruled by Tubo/Tufan..."
Tubo/Tufan, notes Ge, "was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At
least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty." If it were not, he argues,
there would have been no need for the Tang emperor of the day to offer
Princess Wen Cheng in a "marriage of state" to the Tibetan king, Songtsen
Gampo.
"It would be a defiance of history," asserts Ge, "to claim that Tibet has
always been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-
Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not
substantiate such a claim."
Ge's article is an exploration of a larger theme of Chinese identity in
history -- and precisely when it evolved. And his comments on Tibet conform to
scholarly accounts that acknowledge that the takeover of Tibet during the Qing
Dynasty (17th to early 20th century) was the starting point for"Chinese
sovereignty" over the region.
Yet, Ge's comments are controversial insofar as they deviate from the official
Communist Party line that Tibet has always been an inalienable part of China;
in the past China has regarded as any weakening of that theory as "anti-
national" and "split-ist". It will be interesting to see how the authorities
respond to Ge's scholarly article.
Ge's major research fields include historical population geography, population
and migration history, and cultural history. He has written and edited
numerous books, and over 100 articles on historical population geography,
population and migration history, and cultural history.
In his latest article, Ge notes that prior to 1912, when the Republic of China
was officially founded, the idea of China (in Chinese, Zhongguo) wasn't
clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period, he writes, the term
'China' would on occasion be used to refer to the "Qing State, including all
the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing empire"; but at
other times, it would be taken to refer only to the "18 interior provinces",
excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, he argues,
"if we want to understand the extent of ancient China's territory, we can only
speak of how large the actual territory controlled by a particular dynasty was
at a particular moment."
Noting that notions of a 'Greater China' were based entirely on the "one-sided
views of Qing court records that were... written for the court's self-
aggrandisement", Ge criticises those who feel that "the more they exaggerate
the territory of historical 'China' or China's successive dynasties and
kingdoms, the more patriotic they are."
In fact, he says, the opposite is true. "If China really wishes to rise
peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must understand
the sum of our history and learn from our experiences."
http://www.dnaindia.com/world/report_tibet-wasn-t-ours-says-chinese-
scholar_1081523
lorad
> HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the committee that
> advises on official Chinese history textbooks has broken step with the
> official Chinese line on historical sovereignty over Tibet and said that to
> claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom "has always been a part of China"
> would be a "defiance of history".
More like a flat-out Maoist fricken LIE...
You could tell it was a lie by the number of machine-gunned Tibetans
when the maoists invaded in 1959.
Business boys and US presidents don't care, however..they are more
concerned with big profits to be made by shipping US jobs to slave
labor states such as Red China.
I hope you understand their motivations.. because I certainly don't.
Peter Terpstra
> You could tell it was a lie by the number of machine-gunned Tibetans
> when the maoists invaded in 1959.
>
> Business boys and US presidents don't care, however..they are more
> concerned with big profits to be made by shipping US jobs to slave
> labor states such as Red China.
>
> I hope you understand their motivations.. because I certainly don't.
Greediness perhaps?
Thanks for your reaction!
Peter
Fact Attack
wisdom, respectfully with reverence. They even used an ancient
Tibetan symbol for their emblem. Asian loving bastards.