Talk:Tibet

From IBWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

I propose that the flag of tibet currently on the page goes to the government in exile (for the purpose of symetry with this world) and that the regime in tibet use instead another flag, 2 proposal can be seen below

I prefer the second flag proposal, the first one seems to me to be too busy.--Pedromoderno 06:12, 24 April 2008 (PDT)

The first flag could serve as a personal flag of the pro-govt. Dalai Lama, for instance. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

De-prop

I think we can safely deprop this article, especially since we have already one news article based on it. Personally, I like it, especially since "militant buddhism" has been an old one in IB. It was discarded in Russia, but it's nice that we can preserve it elsewhere.

One question, though: the article mentions a Tibetan War (1955-1960). Tibet invaded Uyguristan and Nanhanguo. I'm curious about this. Has anything been discussed that escaped my intention? Not that I have the slightest objection, but I'm wondering if we know any details about this war. To me, it sounds a bit like Tibet suddenly starting a war on two fronts. Invading Uyguristan means invading the Riga Pact. That would automatically involved Russia, Mongolia and Turkestan, as Uyguristan's direct neighbours. Such a war must have had serious repercussions on the whole region, especially in Tibet itself. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 16:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. Tibet *here hasn't got the military-economic muscle or the manpower to be an effective conquering state. And taking on one of the Chinas (all that population to draw armies from, even if at that point they're not really recovered from the Great Oriental War) and the Riga Pact (one of the victors of the Central Asian part of the Second Great War/Great Oriental War)? I guess it's QSS now, but how on earth did it happen?
I don't think we can call it QSS, since the page is still a proposal, the question I raised above is a perfectly valid one, and hasn't been answered yet. Like I said, it just too improbable. I don't know anything about Nanhanguo, but if it's a country 50x more populous than Tibet itself... Invading it, and simultaneously invading a Riga Pact country (which would autmatically generate a war with Russia), simply cannot result in Tibet being twice as big as it was before. I'm not saying such a war can't have taken place, but the outcome can't possibly have been the one as mentioned here.
I don't really know where this war comes from, really. If there have been discussions about this subject, I must have missed them. The pages of Uyguristan and Nanhanguo don't mention any such war. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 11:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
It came about last spring, during the increased interest in Tibet due to the Olympic Torch Relay. It seems to have started with an old piece of QSS unearthed in this thread - long ago, it seems, Tibet was imagined to be occupying all of China (!). This thread explored the idea farther, as did this one, this one, this one on the flag, this one on East Asia generally, and finally this news article. Most of the discussion seemed to have been about the politics of the ruling junta and the rival Dalai Lamas, and nobody seemed to really question the war itself before. From what I can see, however, the idea that Tibet is "big" is QSS, and very old QSS at that. Maybe the facts of the war should be modified - Tibet could attack Nanhanguo, crippled by war and perhaps without a functioning government, but could not attack Uyguristan/Russia simultaneously. Benkarnell 14:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
My notion of the size of Uyguristan
Good thought, Ben! I've nothing against Tibet being big. I just want to work out how it could happen over two fairly large powers. Another possibility along those lines is that during the Great Oriental War, Tibet escaped the worst due to its relative isolation. Nanhanguo was basically called into being by the victorious allies and left to become a state by itself. It might well come off worse in a confrontation with an intact Tibet, basically letting Tibet occupy a large chunk of its Western, far-from-the-centres-of-power areas and suing for peace to give it time to organise itself. Then over time the status quo becomes entrenched. As for Uyguristan, that also suffered in GW2/GOW due to conflicts with Russia, but it had a set of Snorist allies, and Tibet was able to make less headway. Some, due to the general chaos of those years, but less. See the map for a visual representation of how big I think Uyguristan might realistically be. Geoff 16:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I have not the slightest problem with Tibet's internal history, which is what these discussions primarily focused on. I don't have a problem with the war either, but its outcome should be explained properly. I think Geoff made a good start: a relatively intact Tibet that attacked a heavily devasted Nanhanguo. That makes sense to me. Besides, the 2001 article mentions something else: that Tibet and Taiwan cooperated. Obviously, that's QSS too. Now, if Nanhanguo was attacked from both sides, it's an entirely different story. Well, I admit I don't know anything about China, but could it perhaps be that part of Nanhanguo actually *wanted* to be part of Tibet, for religious reasons or whatever? Perhaps Nanhanguo was perceived as something of a continuation of pre-war imperialist China, and part of its inhabitants/the world was fed up with it?
It's another thing with Uyguristan. Is it really written anywhere that Uyguristan was part of the conflict at all? Perhaps the pre-1960 borders were the same as those of today, shown on Geoff's map? Hell, if that were the case, then Uyguristan could even have sided with Tibet; perhaps snorist Russia saw Tibet as a potential ally and hoped to use it as a means for further expansion of its bloc?
BTW, Geoff, the map looks great. Looks like I could have made it myself! ;))) —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 00:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
It makes a lot of sense that Tibet would identify with the SNOR bloc. I know that Marc's flag was directly inspired by the SNOR style (religious symbol atop animal). Benkarnell 13:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools
discussion