Conquer Club

So today my professor compared Tibet and Xinjiang's attempts to secede from China (and the government's response) to the Confederacy's attempt to secede from the USA (and the resulting government response). He basically compared Lincoln to the CCP.

I hadn't thought of it like that before but it's interesting.

Or the USG to the natives as is the CCP to the Tibetans.

I understand comparing but they are different things entirely.

The whole point of the United States was that states could secede. The whole point of China is world enslavement. - and selling crappy stuff.

Hey Doom, hear about that vicious war the Chinese started?

The opium war?

Or as the Crown has been with the First Nations as are the Chinese to the Tibetans.

mrswdk wrote:So today my professor compared Tibet and Xinjiang's attempts to secede from China (and the government's response) to the Confederacy's attempt to secede from the USA (and the resulting government response). He basically compared Lincoln to the CCP.

I hadn't thought of it like that before but it's interesting.

I don't want to say that this is crap, but it kind of is. Most of the Southern States were the original thirteen colonies that declared independence (Virginia's resolution was the seed for the declaration) and were the initial signers of the Constitution. By contrast, Tibet was conquered by China and was under constant state of rebellion going as far back as the Quin Dynasty. It would be far better to compare Tibet to the Native American Tribes who were pushed to the west and then, after the civil war pushed into even more desolate land while the settlers nearly exterminated the buffalo herds that provided all the wealth for the tribes.

It's more than a case of local rule / central rule in Tibet; it's the enforcement of one way of life (China's) over a different way of life (Tibet). Again, it probably draws a better parallel to the Native American's than the Southern States. Somehow I don't think that the leaders of Tibet's revolutions and the leaders of China's military studied at the same academy (as was the case with the Northern and Southern generals who both studied at West Point).

Of course the Civil war is a lot more complex than most people think. While slavery divided the nation, the war was started over Lincoln's enforcement of federal taxes. These taxes would hurt export dependent states (such as agricultural non industrial ones) the hardest and they tended to be the slave states. Lincoln needed the money to fund his trans Continental railroad project. Lincoln was heavy handed in enforcing Federal Authority, but remember this was the Federal Authority that was signed by these states in the first place without any reference in the document to any ability to secede.

They're really different. Tibet was pretty much taken by the Nationalists during the early 1930s. The PRC further secured Tibet during the resumption of their civil war after WW2. Controlling Tibet would establish a better defensive position against the West (namely, the UK)--who were and would definitely use Tibet to exert leverage against PRC (e.g. by exporting weapons into Tibet, subsidizing their military, etc.).

I generally view the taking of Tibet as a move for securing loose ends against a generally hostile enemy (which the West turned out to be for 20+ years). I'm not sure if this is true, but according to Wikipedia, the Sino-Tibetan war (1930-1932) began when Tibetan forces invaded some Chinese warlord's territory, and that warlord was allied/in cahoots with the Nationalist Party (Chiang Kai-shek and Friends).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Tibetan_War


The American Civil War was about the federal government consolidating its hold over the State governments. It wasn't in response to foreign threats.

The two events are similar in that all states seek to expand power, but that's as informative as saying all people eat, shit, and sleep until they die.

DoomYoshi wrote:The opium war?

Hostilities in both Opium Wars were started by the British. Nice try but no.

BigBallinStalin wrote:They're really different. Tibet was pretty much taken by the Nationalists during the early 1930s. The PRC further secured Tibet during the resumption of their civil war after WW2. Controlling Tibet would establish a better defensive position against the West (namely, the UK)--who were and would definitely use Tibet to exert leverage against PRC (e.g. by exporting weapons into Tibet, subsidizing their military, etc.).

I generally view the taking of Tibet as a move for securing loose ends against a generally hostile enemy (which the West turned out to be for 20+ years). I'm not sure if this is true, but according to Wikipedia, the Sino-Tibetan war (1930-1932) began when Tibetan forces invaded some Chinese warlord's territory, and that warlord was allied/in cahoots with the Nationalist Party (Chiang Kai-shek and Friends).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Tibetan_War


The American Civil War was about the federal government consolidating its hold over the State governments. It wasn't in response to foreign threats.

The two events are similar in that all states seek to expand power, but that's as informative as saying all people eat, shit, and sleep until they die.

I believe his point was that both Lincoln and the CCP used violent coercion to retain territories that would otherwise have chosen to be independent.

Yeah, that I don't doubt, but if the Tibetan aggression was true, then I don't see how remaining 'independent' in other people's countries would fly.

I need to recheck my Chinese history books about that 1930-1932 war between Tibet and the Guomingdang (KMT/Republic of China). That's news to me. If it's true, then the KMT responded to Tibetan aggression, so his point doesn't hold for this context, and if we limit the context to only the PRC, then then either the PRC was finishing the job in the late 40s early 50s (thus, in a sense was countering and preventing future Tibetan aggression), or at the very least were re-establishing China's former imperial borders (so, he'd be right only with this one condition).

_sabotage_ wrote:Or as the Crown has been with the First Nations as are the Chinese to the Tibetans.

I've heard that Tibet was ruled by an aristocracy which imposed a caste system. The overwhelming majority of people were subjected to a life of serfdom and the usual punishment for grave crimes (wanting to be free, I guess) was dismemberment.

If this is true, then the comparison with the Americans Indians doesn't hold. And in this sense, the PRC were actually liberators, which is amusing.

A pretty interesting historical fiction acount of what would have happened if secession has been successful in the United States is Harry Turtledove's various series.