Tibet wasn't ours, says Chinese scholar (leading Chinese historian)
Peter Terpstra
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
--
Amnesty International Report 2009 on China:
http://report2009.amnesty.org/en/regions/asia-pacific/china
���D�p�� ���i����
=========================================
嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙瘩嚙瘤嚙踝蕭嚙稽嚙踝蕭O嚙緬嚙衛逃嚙窯嚙踝蕭嚙踝蕭嚙複喉蕭嚙踝蕭Y嚙締嚙踝蕭
http://image.wenweipo.com/2008/04/16/ch0416b.jpg
http://www.realsidelama.cn/page16.html
=========================================
On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 19:20:12 +0100, Peter Terpstra
<pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote in <157415755.UX5OOnnUXE@dharma>:
Allah , your only god Allah , you are only allowed to have me as your only God , you are only authorised to have Allah as your only God .
started to invade Manchuria after 1930 when
the Russians started to build the Trans Siberia Railway .
The Cynic
"Peter Terpstra" <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote in message
news:2527421.g28u51p55W@dharma...
>
> 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".
>
If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the Buddhists.
Peter Terpstra
only God , you are only authorised to have Allah as your only God . in
<1780643b-4341-42eb...@y32g2000prd.googlegroups.com> :
> Manchuria has never been a part of China until the Chinese
> started to invade Manchuria after 1930 when
> the Russians started to build the Trans Siberia Railway .
The rest of the world already knows this, it's only the CCP who likes to
rewrite history and make profit of the lies and abuses.
Kind Regards,
Peter
Peter Terpstra
> (rest snipped)
The rest of the world already knows this, it's the CCP who likes to rewrite
history and make profit of the lies and abuses.
Kind Regards,
Peter
Karl Loon
> HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the >>>>>>>>>stuff deleted.
So Mr. Terpstra, what is your point?
Professor Ge's article simply pointed out in Tang time, the kingdom of
Tubo was a sovereign state independent of Tang. Yes, the Chinese side
claims that Tibet has been part of China since antiquity but that is
in response to the allegation that China invaded Tibet, a sovereign
country in 1950 and forcibly incorporated it into China. But then
what is ancient time? It is never clearly defined in any language.
In other articles, Professor Ge wrote that Tibet became part of China
in Yuan time in 1271. Is that ancient enough?
The absurdity in all that is that the Chinese side says Tibet became
part of China SINCE Yuan and modern China claims Tiber because of
Qing. Yet it was twisted into that China claims Tibet BECAUSE of Yuan
and then went on ridiculing China for not re-covering the rest of the
Mongol Empire.
K. L.
lo yeeOn
Please be honest and fair about what the other person said if you want
to follow up on his message.
"The Cynic" <koso...@nowhere.com> wrote:
But, instead, you cut out the main point of his message, viz.
"If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the
Buddhists."
(See below your follow-up to his message.)
How can you serve your cause by distorting someone else' message?
lo yeeOn
========
In article <3867703.02pkOGNgWA@dharma>,
Peter Terpstra
> "If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the Buddhists"
Let me be honest with you, this is no more then cheap CCP propaganda.
Off course its your job to defend that.
I'm not going to spend time on ridiculousness :-)
Have a happy life and kind regards!
Peter
And why so many ng's???
Peter Terpstra
e9b9ec...@u16g2000pru.googlegroups.com> :
> So Mr. Terpstra, what is your point?
The point is that its not according the CCP and that's one step forward.
Kind Regards,
Peter
lo yeeOn
Peter Terpstra <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote:
>lo yeeOn in <heqohp$757$1...@reader1.panix.com> :
>
>> "If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the Buddhists"
>
>Let me be honest with you, this is no more then cheap CCP propaganda.
I think you're incapable of being honest. There is no evidence that
what The Cynic said was a CCP propaganda. You think people can't
come up with this idea and must draw from the CCP? How execrable!
>Off course its your job to defend that.
I don't have a job with the CCP. I post followup to your posts
sometimes because I disagree with the content of your posts.
And often I'm disgusted with your tactics.
>
>I'm not going to spend time on ridiculousness :-)
You never spend any time thinking about any of the messages you post.
And often, you made yourself look foolish for not thinking about what
you do. It is no exception this time.
>
>Have a happy life and kind regards!
If you truly believe that the CCP is evil and that I work for the CCP,
why would you say this? Clearly it's insincere stuff. (In fact, I
posted several messages strongly critical of the Chinese President Hu
recently. You think that it was "my job" to criticize him if I worked
for the CCP? That is some ridiculousness you surely have spent your
time on despite your claim above to the contrary.
>
>Peter
>
>And why so many ng's???
And that's because your posting tactics in response to others'
followups to your propaganda posts, in my point of view, is not
acceptable behavior. Specifically, this time, when "The Cynic"
<koso...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the
Buddhists"
in response to your casual conclusion that since Tibet was not always
a part of China through the centuries, according to a historian, then
Tibet cannot be a part of China today, you cut out this statement of
his and made it appeared that he agreed with your original message as
well as your _new_ conclusion:
"The rest of the world already knows this, . . ."
where your "this" clearly refers to your subject line that
"Tibet wasn't ours, says Chinese scholar (leading Chinese historian)".
You did the most despicable thing by putting something opposite or
entirely different into another person's mouth.
It's not surprising to me the way you behaved because you've done it
before. You do not have an ounce of integrity inside as you post and
post for the Tibet Independence movement, as its paid staff. So, it
is important for me to point it out to as many groups as I can and let
others see why this should be the way for the Dalai Lama's people to
behave. You're hurting the Tibet Independence effort, in my opinion.
lo yeeOn
========
Dear dharma.dnsdojo.org staff,
Please be honest and fair about what the other person said if you want
to follow up on his message.
"The Cynic" <koso...@nowhere.com> wrote:
"Peter Terpstra" <pe...@dharma.dnsdojo.org> wrote in message
news:2527421.g28u51p55W@dharma...
>
> 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".
>
(rest snipped)
If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the Buddhists.
But, instead, you cut out the main point of his message, viz.
"If that is the case, then Afghanistan should belong to the