Is it rightfully part of china?

is it rightfully part of china?

Yes

why?

define "rightfully"

China is by nature an imperial state, so no nation can 'rightfully' be a part of it. Anything that China owns is rightfully part of China.

>Be Tibet in 1700's
>Spend the last 200-500 years as a warring shithole between Buddhist Monasteries instead of a functioning state.
>Because of this, you're a Suzerain of whoever rules in China.
>1720: Dzungars arise in the Steppes ready to make Mongol Empire 2.0
>Tibet: QINGZ PLS HELP
>Qings: Sure senpai, but this means we have to set up an administration within your lands because seriously you cant unite for shit
>WHATEVER, HELP US.
>Qing BTFO Dzungar mongs.
>Tibet is a protectorate of the Empire. But still independent.
>1788
>Tibetans get into a dispute with the newly unified Gurkhas.
>Gurkhas itching to fight Tibbs because they want an empire. Latches on a trade dispute gone wrong.
>OMG GURKHAS, QINGZ PLS HELP.
>Qing: You are seriously becoming a liability to our western border security by starting fights and not being united in the first place. How bout WE ACTUALLY RULE YOU. We mean, administratively. We're not gonna touch your Buddhist Monasteries.
>WHATEVER, JUST GET THESE POOINLOO GURKHAS OUT OF TIBET.
>Qing wrecks Gurkhas
>Twice.
>Gurkhas never raid Tibet again.

So China just began sucking in the 19th century and suddenly they want out? Fuck them.

From a pragmatic point of view, they don't have the strength to establish their own sovereignty through force of arms.

From a moral perspective, Tibetan theocracy espouses slavery in a form of forced serfdom to the priestly class, though how severe this practice is believed to be varies depending on how much the Tibetologist you're speaking to is pro/anti-China and pro/anti-Dalai Lama Theocracy. Wide range of views, and for once, chicoms aren't the only ones who think that Tibetan theocracy is a bad form of government.

Historically, because it was part of 'china' as a territory during the Qing dynasty, was an autonomous territory of Republican China and was only established for about 35 years as a state, by their own proclaimation. No one else except iirc mongolia?? accepted their sovereignty. It was only til the 50s that the chicoms decided to invade and make them simmer down.

There was no invasion of Tibet in China's part. Tibet latched on to the Chinks for security.

Its only when Qing China stagnated that they suddenly want out. And managed to when they did so with Brit help.

This. Furthermore, there was no invasion of Tibet in the 50s. From a Chinese perspective, it was an action to quell an autonomous territory which suddenly got uppity thanks to British interests in the area.

> So China just began sucking in the 19th century and suddenly they want out?
Why shouldn't a people pursue their self-interest and abandon a relationship with a communist state?

Why shouldn't the US cede Alaska to Canada.

People in Alaska aren't asking for independence, they are in Tibet.

Maybe bad example. But Californians would probably fling shit if Trump gets sworn in. Would you let California sucede?
>inb4 earthquake splits them off from mainland.

>Would you let California sucede?
As a Texan, gladly. But nuking them would be even better.

>nuking one of the only reasons the US economy is still afloat

Why are Texans and Southerners in general so ungrateful? If you'd like to develop the world's best tech industry, world's leading entertainment industry (I don't like it but it generates $$$) and improve the UT university system to that of the level of the UC system, then we can talk. Until then, you're just benefiting from the hard work that Californians put in to keep America strong.

>Texas
>South

No land inherently belongs to any nation. Tibet is China's by right of conquest and its ability to keep it that way by whatever means necessary. Native American lands rightfully belong to the US because whites conquered them and kept them from rising up by whatever means necessary.

why are californians so ungrateful?
the rest of the US gives them food, oil, and water but they act as if they're the only important state ever.

Yes. Right of self-determination

It is rightfully their since they claimed it and can back their claim with a military, but culturally, geographically, and politically Tibet is nothing like China so I don't really see why they want it.

>Why shouldn't a people pursue their self-interest and abandon a relationship with a communist state?
>1912
What communist state? You mean the Republic of China?

The one going full multiculti? "Three Principles of the People?" "One Land With Five Nations?" Whose nation is represented in the Flag of the Republic? (Color Black). The Republic which publicly apologized to the Dalai Lama for the faults of the Qing Dynasty? And offered to restory the Dalai Lama as the head of an Autonomous Tibet with representation in the Chinese senate? That communist state?

Ideally China would turn into an enlightened republic overnight with low level elections for the plebs and an assembly of stoic patricians handling the more serious matters of state. Tibet would be largely autonomous and send representatives to deal with matters that concern them thereby allowing it independence while maintaining a strong relationship with China, but it is not a perfect world.

All things considered (including the factors you mention) it is best to leave it be until China becomes more economically developed.

once the han colonization has finished this question will be moot T B H

china will buy the far east from russia

their nuclear tension with india will be terrible. will be mini shitskin cold war in the 21st century

Why would Russia sell off all of their natural resources

>From a pragmatic point of view, they don't have the strength to establish their own sovereignty through force of arms.

well most nations dont. especially if their neighbors are in the top 10 military forces in the world.

Who called the chinese to come and rule if there was no central authority?

Californians would not ask to secede, they would want Trump to get out.

The tibetans don't want to change Xi Jinping for another dude. It's just different.

Wasn't the republic of China a complete clusterfuck unable to control shit?

No, he means the "People's" Republic that came directly after it, retard. The Republic of China respected their independence, but Mao's government didn't. So they invaded, and now Tibet unjustly is in the hands of China. That government is the one the modern Tibetan people should split off from.

Won't matter senpai, once Tibetans become a minority in Tibet like what happened in Xinjiang

Yes.

It will be.

Yep and inner mongolia and guangxi.

People give the west shit for colonisation but China is still at it but because its on the borders of their "homelands" its somehow acceptable.

What is the moral rational of Tibet being under China today?

Would Tibet go back to theocratic government and start enslaving its own people?

>Tibet
lel Han Chinese can't handle high altitude sickness.

>colonization
Considering how Sinitics expanded all the way from the Wei River/Yellow River valley I doubt they will stop.

Demographic warfare is truly insidious

China is slowly cleansing Tibet of of anything that isn't Han.

Is the assimilation of the world unto the Han the Chinese endgame?

Because the world doesn't need another poor irrelevant landlocked nation. The average Tibetan who's not a butthurt nationalist is going to be hell of a lot happier in the long run being part of the Chinese nation.

That is Confederate States of America tier reasoning.

>The world
>Not the entire galaxy.

The average Tibetans wont exist in the long rum.

Might makes right.

Laws/Ethics exists for a reason.


But I get what you're saying in this situation. Tibet can never, again, match the Chinese. Their prime time was over after adopting Buddhism.