T.T.Moh, Professor of Department of Mathematics, Purdue University, a member of Tibet Study Association (formerly America-Tibet Association).
http://http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/history0.html
I would like to interrupt for a minute. After hearing so many arguments about China or Chinese, I found a lot of them were just semantics. What is the meaning of `Chinese'? Does it mean `citizen (or nationalities) of China' or just `Han'? In the first sense, anybody, independent of race, could theoretically become a Chinese. In the second sense, China probably should deserve a different English term. I do not mean that we should never use those terms. However, if any disagreement appears, then one should reflect and be careful.
An important problem arose from the above semantics: China as traditional known was never a racist state, therefore, it was irrational to equal China with the country of Han people. Not only Yuan (Mongolia) Dynasty and Ching (Manchu) Dynasty were recognized as Chinese Dynasties, there were many non-Han Dynasties which were treated exactly as any Han-Dynasty. Even Tang Dynasty which was no doubt a Han-Dynasty in many people's mind was really ambiguous. It was known that the matriarch of the royal family was a Turk, and the patriarch had no known family background of any kind. Furthermore, according to a famous Tang poet Dupu, the royal family had the characteristic of high nose! (Guo Di Tze Sun Jin Lon Dzun). Possibly non-Han. The government of Tang was full of non-Han including Tibetan. But who cared? The only thing one really cared was if the Chinese civilization was maintained, which meant if `Chung' (loyalty to the Emperor, to the civilization, to the state), `Hsiao' (to respect parents and elders), `Jie' (self-sacrifices, which were especially applied to females facing rapists), `Yee' (fraternity) had their positions. Almost all people in the past had no problem in recognizing a Han Emperor, a Turk Emperor, a Mongolia Emperor, a Manchu Emperor, or a Tibetan King of China. Anyone who took a revisionist and racist point of view about Chinese civilization was likely a racist oneself.
Were there discriminations against Tibetans? It depended on your point of view. From the point of view of Maxists, since the policies in Tibet were not as `advanced' as in Han area, you might argue for the existences of discriminations. If you were a non-Maxist and a religious person, then you would think Han people was discriminated against.
http://http://cc.purdue.edu/~wtv/tibet/history0.html
I would like to interrupt for a minute. After hearing so many arguments about China or Chinese, I found a lot of them were just semantics. What is the meaning of `Chinese'? Does it mean `citizen (or nationalities) of China' or just `Han'? In the first sense, anybody, independent of race, could theoretically become a Chinese. In the second sense, China probably should deserve a different English term. I do not mean that we should never use those terms. However, if any disagreement appears, then one should reflect and be careful.
An important problem arose from the above semantics: China as traditional known was never a racist state, therefore, it was irrational to equal China with the country of Han people. Not only Yuan (Mongolia) Dynasty and Ching (Manchu) Dynasty were recognized as Chinese Dynasties, there were many non-Han Dynasties which were treated exactly as any Han-Dynasty. Even Tang Dynasty which was no doubt a Han-Dynasty in many people's mind was really ambiguous. It was known that the matriarch of the royal family was a Turk, and the patriarch had no known family background of any kind. Furthermore, according to a famous Tang poet Dupu, the royal family had the characteristic of high nose! (Guo Di Tze Sun Jin Lon Dzun). Possibly non-Han. The government of Tang was full of non-Han including Tibetan. But who cared? The only thing one really cared was if the Chinese civilization was maintained, which meant if `Chung' (loyalty to the Emperor, to the civilization, to the state), `Hsiao' (to respect parents and elders), `Jie' (self-sacrifices, which were especially applied to females facing rapists), `Yee' (fraternity) had their positions. Almost all people in the past had no problem in recognizing a Han Emperor, a Turk Emperor, a Mongolia Emperor, a Manchu Emperor, or a Tibetan King of China. Anyone who took a revisionist and racist point of view about Chinese civilization was likely a racist oneself.
Were there discriminations against Tibetans? It depended on your point of view. From the point of view of Maxists, since the policies in Tibet were not as `advanced' as in Han area, you might argue for the existences of discriminations. If you were a non-Maxist and a religious person, then you would think Han people was discriminated against.
