The question is not whether Tibet should be independent but the extent of the autonomy that it is allowed. Tibet has been firmly ensconced as part of the Chinese empire since the Qing dynasty\’s military intervention in Tibet in the early 18th century.
The British conquered Mallorca in the 18 th century: should the discussion be only how much autonomy it should have? The Union between England and Wales and Scotland happened at the beginning of the 18th century: should the discussion be only about how much autonomy Scotland might have? The British were in control of large parts of India in the 18 th century: should Calcutta only be allowed to discuss how much autonomy they have?
Or is there something different about slitty eyed Johnny Foreigner conquering an Empire and lily-white Anglos doing so?
The result is that China has little conception of difference. The Chinese think of themselves as one race. Their historical experience is one of slow and steady assimilation and absorption, with population settlement often a crucial instrument in pacification. In this light, the Han Chinese migration to Tibet and Xinjiang province in northwest China is nothing new: on the contrary it has been an age-old characteristic of Chinese expansion (a large majority of those who now live in Mongolia and Manchuria, for instance, are Han).
Ethnic and cultural genocide is fine as long as it\’s not Anglos doing it to Amerinds, Aborigines or Maori?
We\’re really well into double standards territory here, aren\’t we?