http://granitestudio.org/2007/02/20/chinese-historian-to-exaggerate-the-size-of-chinas-historical-territory-is-not-patriotic-full-text/ A Qing historian reads the newspaper... Sat, 02 Jul 2011 03:31:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://granitestudio.org/2007/02/20/chinese-historian-to-exaggerate-the-size-of-chinas-historical-territory-is-not-patriotic-full-text/comment-page-1/#comment-10328 pletbawaype Fri, 30 Jan 2009 08:38:13 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=182#comment-10328 yo, granitestudio.org great name for site))) yo, granitestudio.org great name for site)))

]]> http://granitestudio.org/2007/02/20/chinese-historian-to-exaggerate-the-size-of-chinas-historical-territory-is-not-patriotic-full-text/comment-page-1/#comment-10237 On the Wrong Side of History… | Jottings from the Granite Studio Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:53:23 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=182#comment-10237 [...] “Τιbet was historically a part of China,” just that such assertions are built on unstable ground.  The problem of Τιbet involves highly complex questions of sovereignty, authority, national [...] [...] “Τιbet was historically a part of China,” just that such assertions are built on unstable ground.  The problem of Τιbet involves highly complex questions of sovereignty, authority, national [...]

]]> http://granitestudio.org/2007/02/20/chinese-historian-to-exaggerate-the-size-of-chinas-historical-territory-is-not-patriotic-full-text/comment-page-1/#comment-556 Dan Sun, 04 Mar 2007 21:29:00 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=182#comment-556 As a Tibetologist specializing in Tibetan history for the last 25 years, I can tell you that in Tibetan literature there is not a single usage of the term 'China' (Gyanag) that in any way includes Tibet. That goes for all of Tibetan literature up to 1950. Nowadays TAR/PRC publications may indeed speak of the 'motherland,' but in earlier Tibet they knew only of 'fatherland' and 'ancestral land,' both of them meaning the Tibetan plateau and nothing else. In geographic conceptions of the 12th century on, this is particularly clear: Tibet is in the center, India in the south, China in the east, Gesar in the north and Persia (Tazik) in the west. And the Tibetan word used here emphasizes territory alone, not nation and not language. These things we know, yet the PRC gov't finds such facts inconvenient. I say too bad! Can send exact references if you desire. As a Tibetologist specializing in Tibetan history for the last 25 years, I can tell you that in Tibetan literature there is not a single usage of the term ‘China’ (Gyanag) that in any way includes Tibet. That goes for all of Tibetan literature up to 1950. Nowadays TAR/PRC publications may indeed speak of the ‘motherland,’ but in earlier Tibet they knew only of ‘fatherland’ and ‘ancestral land,’ both of them meaning the Tibetan plateau and nothing else. In geographic conceptions of the 12th century on, this is particularly clear: Tibet is in the center, India in the south, China in the east, Gesar in the north and Persia (Tazik) in the west. And the Tibetan word used here emphasizes territory alone, not nation and not language. These things we know, yet the PRC gov’t finds such facts inconvenient. I say too bad! Can send exact references if you desire.

]]> http://granitestudio.org/2007/02/20/chinese-historian-to-exaggerate-the-size-of-chinas-historical-territory-is-not-patriotic-full-text/comment-page-1/#comment-551 jychubby@gmail.com Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:22:00 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=182#comment-551 Interesting. My Asian art and culture professor had the exact same answer "what is china?" when I asked her about Tibet and Xinjiang problem in China. She is doing research in Xinjiang Culture right now. Interesting. My Asian art and culture professor had the exact same answer “what is china?” when I asked her about Tibet and Xinjiang problem in China. She is doing research in Xinjiang Culture right now.

]]> http://granitestudio.org/2007/02/20/chinese-historian-to-exaggerate-the-size-of-chinas-historical-territory-is-not-patriotic-full-text/comment-page-1/#comment-543 Rich Felker Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:42:00 +0000 http://granitestudio.org/?p=182#comment-543 花崗齋之愚公,<br/>I agree that the paper shows no signs of Prof. Ge leaning at all towards Tibetan independence and that he points it out as a territory that's now part of China. However the distinction of historical ownership is quite important from a perspective of international law. As <a HREF="http://secrettibet.rsfblog.org/archive/2007/01/16/the-legal-status-of-tibet.html" REL="nofollow">this January article on The Secret Tibet</a> describes, China "bases its claim to Tibet solely on their theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries." Thus, the breakdown of this theory in Chinese academia becomes a bit more interesting... :) 花崗齋之愚公,
I agree that the paper shows no signs of Prof. Ge leaning at all towards Tibetan independence and that he points it out as a territory that’s now part of China. However the distinction of historical ownership is quite important from a perspective of international law. As this January article on The Secret Tibet describes, China “bases its claim to Tibet solely on their theory that Tibet has been an integral part of China for centuries.” Thus, the breakdown of this theory in Chinese academia becomes a bit more interesting…

]]>