Speaking of historical legitimacy, Tibet was already a part of the central Dynasty since the Yuan Dynasty, independent in Ming Dynasty, taken back by Qing Dynasty until now, which is much more longer than Japanese Okinawa.
Looking back at history, I'm really greaful for generations of Vietnamese who had lost their lives to repel Chinese invasions, especially that one event in 1946 where 200,000 Chinese Nationalist army almost succesful in taking Vietnam again. Why? Because if China had captured Vietnam then, this would be the rationale they use: just like Tibet, Vietnam has been on again, off again occupied by Chinese expansionists. Therefore, with this kind of logic, China would have totally "legitimately" owned Vietnam. I will tell you why that kind of logic fail:
1) Both Yuan and Qing Dynasty are foreigners that invaded China of the Han at the time. Yuan are Mongolians, Qing are Manchurians. You cannot claim lands conquered by invaders as your own. China and Tibet are distinct countries, governed by distinct people (Han and Tibetan) for thousands of years. They cannot suddenly become one because some foreign powers took them both. French colonized the whole Indochina, but Vietnam cannot claim Laos and Cambodia its land. I remember very well that the CCP supported the genocide Pol Pot regime in Cambodia due to fear that Vietnam would annex Cambodia using this exact "historical precedent" you just mentioned. How does a dose of irony tatse? Maybe if China were not a resource-hungry expantionist country, it would be easier to defend the PRC.
2) After the Ming Dynasty regained Han China independence from the Mongolians, Tibet got its independence as well. Qing Dynasty, another foreigner to Han China took Tibet again. After the Qing fell, Tibet once again became a separate country. This further proved that Tibet has always been a separate nation and were able to gain independence together with Han China after foregin invaders are expelled.
As for the self-immolation thing, I suppose there is no cult in Okinawa to encourage people to join a mass suicide (they don't workship a man as a God either), which is a "common" action to those silly people around the world (expectantly when someone claiming "the end of the world").
Besides If they really like to burn themselves because of the reason that the CCP is truly really bad, then this is not a Tibetan's 'job' to commit self-immolation, but Han, since the CCP is treating Tibetan much better than Han.
Self-immolation is a higest act of sacrifice when one has no other available means of protest. Self-immolation is borned from the very heart of Buddhism where the concern of "do no harm to other" is held at the utmost importance. Gandhi's silent protest and hunger strike is what brought his country independence. His sacrifices brought over the world's sympathy and admiration. Same reactions were made to the self-immolation act of a South Vietnam monk protesting the terrorism of Buddhism of South Vietnam Ngo Dinh Diem's regime. That act shocked America to the point where it decided to dispose Diem. Most recently, hunger strike from prisoners of Guantanamo caused America to rethink its terrorist prison policy.
As you can see, that's how the civilized world act when seeing an act of self-immolation. Only in the PRC where I see such dismissive attitude toward it. On American forums, every time such news come up (immolation news occurs at least once a year in Tibet) I see a regular of mainlanders one after another insults such act. They dismiss that Tibetan using words from "stupid," "cult," "terrorist" and the most tame word is "irresponsible." They also dismiss anyone expressing sympathy to Tibetan "anti-China" or "Xenophobic," all strong condemnations but not a peep about Tibetan's plight. Your statement, which simply dismisses Tibetans ' self-immolation as silly, while never explore why they do it, shows that you have a narrow view of world events. This is perhaps shaped by years of propaganda or strong nationalist view point.
"CCP treats Tibetan much better than Han, and we don't see Han self-immolation, therefore Tibetan act is silly and/or Tibetan is not badly treated at all"- paraphrasing your argument. This circular logic is wrong on both the assumptions and conclusion. Tibet is one of the poorest regions in PRC, Tibetan's lands are confiscated and distributed to Hans, Tibetan's culture is subsided by Han's culture, and Tibetans who dare advocate for independence are jailed, beaten, persecuted. I don't see those as "better than Han," do you?!
Also the very small minority support, I really doubt it:
I read all your links, and there are no proofs of your doubt. One has a poll of Okinawa residents, but it was about a totally different topic from "Okinawa independence." The residents were disagree to the notion that Okinawa were independent on the same date with Japan, which is true since America only returned Okinawa to Japan years later. They are mad not because of returning to Japan, but because they were still under American administration while the whole Japan were free. Another the link also talk about a group of Okinawa's residents who are displease that Japan does little to decrease the US presence in the islands.
So the whole issue were not about the majority Okinawa wanting to be independent from Japan, but about the majority of people who are mad with Japan's continuation to keep the US there. It's unreasonable to think that they want to separate from Japan, and even more ridiculous to dream that they want to join China.
As for the name of the Newspapers, nar, just ignore it. There is also "people's" in PRC, "Socialist" in SRV and "Democratic" in the DPRK. These are nothing but jokes.
My concern with the Global Times was more about layman who would look at its "international" name and mistakes it for a reputable organization. I reveal its affiliation so that next time, when a member from PRC side quote that newspaper as "truth," people will immediately be skeptical about all those Pro-CCP biases written there.
It's funny how you seem to understand that CCP is a tricky organization, yet you continue to vocally defend whatever it does. This is to say how much extreme nationalistic feelings can cause people to bend their beliefs.
