Tiki Tam Tam
<b>MILITARY PROFESSIONALS</b>
- Joined
- May 15, 2006
- Messages
- 9,330
- Reaction score
- 0
Tibet wasnt ours, says Chinese scholar
Venkatesan Vembu
Thursday, February 22, 2007 20:37 IST
HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the committee that advises on official Chinese history textbooks has broken step with the official Chinese line on historical sovereignty over Tibet and said that to claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom has always been a part of China would be a defiance of history.
In an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, 62, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography and the Research Centre for Historical Geographic Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, states that while considering how big China was during the Tang Dynasty (7th to 10th century), we cannot include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan
Tubo/Tufan, notes Ge, was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty. If it were not, he argues, there would have been no need for the Tang emperor of the day to offer Princess Wen Cheng in a marriage of state to the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gampo.
It would be a defiance of history, asserts Ge, to claim that Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim.
Ges article is an exploration of a larger theme of Chinese identity in history and precisely when it evolved. And his comments on Tibet conform to scholarly accounts that acknowledge that the takeover of Tibet during the Qing Dynasty (17th to early 20th century) was the starting point for Chinese sovereignty over the region.
Yet, Ges comments are controversial insofar as they deviate from the official Communist Party line that Tibet has always been an inalienable part of China; in the past China has regarded as any weakening of that theory as anti-national and split-ist. It will be interesting to see how the authorities respond to Ges scholarly article.
Ges major research fields include historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history. He has written and edited numerous books, and over 100 articles on historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history.
In his latest article, Ge notes that prior to 1912, when the Republic of China was officially founded, the idea of China (in Chinese, Zhongguo) wasnt clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period, he writes, the term China would on occasion be used to refer to the Qing State, including all the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing empire; but at other times, it would be taken to refer only to the 18 interior provinces, excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, he argues, if we want to understand the extent of ancient Chinas territory, we can only speak of how large the actual territory controlled by a particular dynasty was at a particular moment.
Noting that notions of a Greater China were based entirely on the one-sided views of Qing court records that were written for the courts self-aggrandisement, Ge criticises those who feel that the more they exaggerate the territory of historical China or Chinas successive dynasties and kingdoms, the more patriotic they are.
In fact, he says, the opposite is true. If China really wishes to rise peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must understand the sum of our history and learn from our experiences.
DNA - World - Tibet wasnt ours, says Chinese scholar - Daily News & Analysis
Venkatesan Vembu
Thursday, February 22, 2007 20:37 IST
HONG KONG: A leading Chinese historian and a veteran of the committee that advises on official Chinese history textbooks has broken step with the official Chinese line on historical sovereignty over Tibet and said that to claim that the ancient Buddhist kingdom has always been a part of China would be a defiance of history.
In an article in the China Review magazine, Professor Ge Jianxiong, 62, director of the Institute of Chinese Historical Geography and the Research Centre for Historical Geographic Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai, states that while considering how big China was during the Tang Dynasty (7th to 10th century), we cannot include the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau, which was ruled by Tubo/Tufan
Tubo/Tufan, notes Ge, was a sovereignty independent of the Tang Dynasty. At least it was not administered by the Tang Dynasty. If it were not, he argues, there would have been no need for the Tang emperor of the day to offer Princess Wen Cheng in a marriage of state to the Tibetan king, Songtsen Gampo.
It would be a defiance of history, asserts Ge, to claim that Tibet has always been a part of China since the Tang Dynasty; the fact that the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau subsequently became a part of the Chinese dynasties does not substantiate such a claim.
Ges article is an exploration of a larger theme of Chinese identity in history and precisely when it evolved. And his comments on Tibet conform to scholarly accounts that acknowledge that the takeover of Tibet during the Qing Dynasty (17th to early 20th century) was the starting point for Chinese sovereignty over the region.
Yet, Ges comments are controversial insofar as they deviate from the official Communist Party line that Tibet has always been an inalienable part of China; in the past China has regarded as any weakening of that theory as anti-national and split-ist. It will be interesting to see how the authorities respond to Ges scholarly article.
Ges major research fields include historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history. He has written and edited numerous books, and over 100 articles on historical population geography, population and migration history, and cultural history.
In his latest article, Ge notes that prior to 1912, when the Republic of China was officially founded, the idea of China (in Chinese, Zhongguo) wasnt clearly conceptualised. Even during the late Qing period, he writes, the term China would on occasion be used to refer to the Qing State, including all the territory that fell within the boundaries of the Qing empire; but at other times, it would be taken to refer only to the 18 interior provinces, excluding Manchuria, Inner Mongolia, Tibet and Xinjiang. Therefore, he argues, if we want to understand the extent of ancient Chinas territory, we can only speak of how large the actual territory controlled by a particular dynasty was at a particular moment.
Noting that notions of a Greater China were based entirely on the one-sided views of Qing court records that were written for the courts self-aggrandisement, Ge criticises those who feel that the more they exaggerate the territory of historical China or Chinas successive dynasties and kingdoms, the more patriotic they are.
In fact, he says, the opposite is true. If China really wishes to rise peacefully and be on a solid footing to face the future, we must understand the sum of our history and learn from our experiences.
DNA - World - Tibet wasnt ours, says Chinese scholar - Daily News & Analysis
, and as such his or her decisions must always command the respect and obedience of the people. The emperor’s very figure brought legitimacy. In emphasizing the power of rulership, Legalists such as Shen Dao (ca. 350-275 BC) and Shen Buhai sought to devalue the importance of the charismatic ruler. Skillful rulers hid their true intentions and feigned nonchalance. To ensure that all of his or her words were revered, the wise ruler kept a low profile. Thus, theoretically, by cloaking both his or her desires and his or her will, the Emperors checked sycophancy and forced his or her subject to heed his or her dictates. While Shang Yang (the Prime Minister of Duke Xiao of Qin) would allow rulers to listen to musical instruments rather than focus on foreign policy, Han Feizi (the Legalist scholar most admired by the First Qin Emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi) demanded more of the wise ruler. A good leader, by Han Feizi's standards, must not only accept the advice of loyal ministers when shown to be in error, but must also extend courtesy to those beneath him or her and not be too avaricious. The adept ruler also understood the importance of strictness over benevolence. Although the ruler was expected to be paternalistic, the Legalists emphasized that being too kind would spoil the populace and threaten the state's internal order. Interestingly, according to Han's Grand Historian Sima Qian (ca. 145-86 BC), while the First Qin Emperor hid himself from the rest of the world (perhaps due to a desire to attain immortality) and thus maintained a low profile, he did not necessarily follow all of the Legalists’ advice on the role of the ruler.
