There's lots of irredentist claims in every part of the world.
It's not a tenable claim to say the irredentist claim is valid just because it exists.
It's not a tenable claim to say the irredentist claim is valid just because the majority/big country supports it. By that logic no small country could ever become independent of a big one.
Tibet was separate from China before 1720. Then it was in China 1720-1912 (198 years). Then it was independent 1912-1950 (38 years). Saying "Well it actually is China" is just asserting a claim, no more.
It formally wasn't. China never recognized it as independent and neither did the "international community" (however you want to interpret that term).
Should Mongolia also be absorbed into China?
That's not for me to say. The PRC recognized Mongolia's independence and they have great and lucrative relations now. I don't currently see that anyone who matters has any material or ideological interest in changing that.
I'm not making a prescriptive statement. I'm telling you how things are and not how they should be.
Countries are not inert objects in a universal logical framework, they are made up of people and what the people of a country think and want and feel matters, even if that's subjective. And when that country is a civilization state like China that carries a certain weight.
By that logic no small country could ever become independent of a big one.
They usually can't unless their independence is to the advantage of one of more big countries. For instance, although Mongolia being independent has more to do with Russia and the Russian civil war than it does with China, it is nevertheless a useful buffer state for both.
If it wasn't, it probably wouldn't be independent.
I'm not making a prescriptive statement. I'm telling you how things are and not how they should be.
Yeah, no. I disagree. What I've been hammering on is that a territorial claim is NOT objective, but rather prescribed by human institutions. If you don't agree, that's fine. But the fact remains: there's no objective fact that determines whether Corsica belongs to France or itself: only human opinions. I can't make the point any more thoroughly than I already have.
That's correct. That's what i've been trying to tell you, that the subjective matters and that we can't just ignore it and pretend like we can establish an objective framework for everything where human relations are concerned, which is ultimately what international relations are just on a larger scale.
I have a question for you: do you think that the people of Tibet would be materially better off if they had been turned into an anti-China proxy by the imperialists like Ukraine is now for Russia? Do you not think that maybe being a part of China and enjoying the peaceful economic and social development that China has brought to Tibet has been to the advantage of the people living there?
What exactly would you hope to achieve by making Tibet "independent" (leaving them more vulnerable to imperialist meddling and exploitation) and how do you know that Tibetans actually want that? I'm trying to understand, why are Europeans so fixated on creating ethno-states everywhere? What is wrong with Tibet being a part of the multi-ethnic Chinese nation to which they have deep historic and cultural ties?
I have a question for you: do you think that the people of Tibet would be materially better off if they had been turned into an anti-China proxy by the imperialists like Ukraine is now for Russia?
I don't know.
how do you know that Tibetans actually want that?
I don't know what Tibetans want, much less the Tibetans living in 1950. There's a few particularly vocal ones of course on both sides, but I don't have good information on the various opinions that exist their and their prevalence.
There's lots of irredentist claims in every part of the world.
It's not a tenable claim to say the irredentist claim is valid just because it exists.
It's not a tenable claim to say the irredentist claim is valid just because the majority/big country supports it. By that logic no small country could ever become independent of a big one.
Tibet was separate from China before 1720. Then it was in China 1720-1912 (198 years). Then it was independent 1912-1950 (38 years). Saying "Well it actually is China" is just asserting a claim, no more.
Should Mongolia also be absorbed into China?
It formally wasn't. China never recognized it as independent and neither did the "international community" (however you want to interpret that term).
That's not for me to say. The PRC recognized Mongolia's independence and they have great and lucrative relations now. I don't currently see that anyone who matters has any material or ideological interest in changing that.
I'm not making a prescriptive statement. I'm telling you how things are and not how they should be.
Countries are not inert objects in a universal logical framework, they are made up of people and what the people of a country think and want and feel matters, even if that's subjective. And when that country is a civilization state like China that carries a certain weight.
They usually can't unless their independence is to the advantage of one of more big countries. For instance, although Mongolia being independent has more to do with Russia and the Russian civil war than it does with China, it is nevertheless a useful buffer state for both.
If it wasn't, it probably wouldn't be independent.
Yeah, no. I disagree. What I've been hammering on is that a territorial claim is NOT objective, but rather prescribed by human institutions. If you don't agree, that's fine. But the fact remains: there's no objective fact that determines whether Corsica belongs to France or itself: only human opinions. I can't make the point any more thoroughly than I already have.
That's correct. That's what i've been trying to tell you, that the subjective matters and that we can't just ignore it and pretend like we can establish an objective framework for everything where human relations are concerned, which is ultimately what international relations are just on a larger scale.
I have a question for you: do you think that the people of Tibet would be materially better off if they had been turned into an anti-China proxy by the imperialists like Ukraine is now for Russia? Do you not think that maybe being a part of China and enjoying the peaceful economic and social development that China has brought to Tibet has been to the advantage of the people living there?
What exactly would you hope to achieve by making Tibet "independent" (leaving them more vulnerable to imperialist meddling and exploitation) and how do you know that Tibetans actually want that? I'm trying to understand, why are Europeans so fixated on creating ethno-states everywhere? What is wrong with Tibet being a part of the multi-ethnic Chinese nation to which they have deep historic and cultural ties?
I don't know.
I don't know what Tibetans want, much less the Tibetans living in 1950. There's a few particularly vocal ones of course on both sides, but I don't have good information on the various opinions that exist their and their prevalence.