Chinese history scholar argues that Tibet not always part of China

Tibet wasn’t ours, says Chinese scholar
Venkatesan Vembu
Daily News and Analysis
Thursday, February 22, 2007

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.”

Ge’s 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, Ge’s 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 “splittist”. It will be interesting to see how the authorities respond to Ge’s scholarly article.

Ge’s 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) wasn’t 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 China’s 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 court’s self-aggrandisement”, Ge criticises those who feel that “the more they exaggerate the territory of historical ‘China’ or China’s 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.”

You do know that MILLIONS of americans even considers Canada as 51st province of USA, dont you ?

Why do they think so ?

Many empires had expanded and contracted. Many countries created. The right of possession based upon once dominance should not count just beause the other country's boundary is next door. Then even Nepal would be part of Tibet. Portugal part of Spain, etc,

MyView wrote:

You do know that MILLIONS of americans even considers Canada as 51st province of USA, dont you ?
Why do they think so ?

they can dream on. 75% of Canadians have to vote to decide.

England belongs to the Irish!

I do believe the Your new Mexcico state,C.A. need to return to the Mexico.

MyView wrote:

You do know that MILLIONS of americans even considers Canada as 51st province of USA, dont you ?
Why do they think so ?

I follow your post .. you're claim/debate is a flaw.

I spotted a leopard with the same spots.

Twin Tower wrote:

<quoted text>
I follow your post .. you're claim/debate is a flaw.

The same can be said of your grammar Leonard. Glad to see you are posting BS under a different handle though.

We have pitty on you westeners.

You are more brain washed then Chinese. You blindly believe any anti-China news, and black out any pro-China truth. You thought you were helping Chinese toward democracy, but all you are doing is to provoke a confrontation with 1.4 billion strong-minded Chinese.

China killed 300 thousands American soliders in the Korean war and drove them back. Now China is 100 times stronger. You will break like wave on rocks.

Educated Chinese wrote:

We have pitty on you westeners.
You are more brain washed then Chinese. You blindly believe any anti-China news, and black out any pro-China truth. You thought you were helping Chinese toward democracy, but all you are doing is to provoke a confrontation with 1.4 billion strong-minded Chinese.
China killed 300 thousands American soliders in the Korean war and drove them back. Now China is 100 times stronger. You will break like wave on rocks.

I pity you "Educated Chinese" for thinking that the entire 'west' is one country. If you bothered to read any of the posts you would see it was mostly American posters which have the anti-CCP stance. You would also see that Germany (which is what you consider west) apologised. Stop being such a victim and perpetuating the growing strain between Chinese people and other cultures. You should have realised by now that America has not represented the "west" for a very long time.

Aroha_NZ wrote:

<quoted text>
I pity you "Educated Chinese" for thinking that the entire 'west' is one country. If you bothered to read any of the posts you would see it was mostly American posters which have the anti-CCP stance. You would also see that Germany (which is what you consider west) apologised. Stop being such a victim and perpetuating the growing strain between Chinese people and other cultures. You should have realised by now that America has not represented the "west" for a very long time.

Well I should have said "those westerners who ...". I agree with what you've said. My post was not to ALL westerners.

Tibetan Human Rights wrote:

Tibet wasn’t ours, says Chinese scholar
Venkatesan Vembu
Daily News and Analysis
Thursday, February 22, 2007
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.”

==========
No Chinese historian, as far as I know, have ever claimed that Tibet was part of China during the Tang Dynasty (AD 618-907)
Tibet became a part of China during the Yuan Dynasty (1279-1368)ie 600 years after the Tang Dynasty.

Educated Chinese wrote:

<quoted text>
Well I should have said "those westerners who ...". I agree with what you've said. My post was not to ALL westerners.

Sorry I got a bit shirty, I just think the term 'west' perpetuates an 'us versus them' rhetoric which has been quite consistant in this particular debate on Tibet. I think it's really important that the chinese people see that the 'west' holds multiple views on this subject, and that they don't start to feel like everyone is out to get them, or dislikes their country and culture.

Actually the Yuan Dynasty was a Mongol dynasty, started by Kublai Khan when he conquered both China and Tibet. China and Tibet had the same overlord. So, actually, the Yuan Dynasty claim results in China's being part of Mongolia.

If you go to the government-run, so-called "Tibet Museum" in Lhasa, you will find the Tang Dynasty claim made everywhere.

Aroha_NZ wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry I got a bit shirty, I just think the term 'west' perpetuates an 'us versus them' rhetoric which has been quite consistant in this particular debate on Tibet. I think it's really important that the chinese people see that the 'west' holds multiple views on this subject, and that they don't start to feel like everyone is out to get them, or dislikes their country and culture.

Thanks! All people with their eyes open to facts without discrimination, no matter they criticize or praise China, are my friends. Educated Chinese like westeners like you!

Educated Chinese wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks! All people with their eyes open to facts without discrimination, no matter they criticize or praise China, are my friends. Educated Chinese like westeners like you!

:)

Tibetan Human Rights wrote:

Actually the Yuan Dynasty was a Mongol dynasty, started by Kublai Khan when he conquered both China and Tibet. China and Tibet had the same overlord. So, actually, the Yuan Dynasty claim results in China's being part of Mongolia.
If you go to the government-run, so-called "Tibet Museum" in Lhasa, you will find the Tang Dynasty claim made everywhere.

Better you visit any of the Chinese Embassy websites and check for yourself. China ve never claimed that Tibet was a part of China in Tang Dynasty.

China has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. The Royal families came from different ethnic origines. This is not unique to China. The English had German and French kings.
If Obama become the president of USA it doesn't mean that Texas no longer belongs to USA.

yugung wrote:

<quoted text>
Better you visit any of the Chinese Embassy websites and check for yourself. China ve never claimed that Tibet was a part of China in Tang Dynasty.
China has always been a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural country. The Royal families came from different ethnic origines. This is not unique to China. The English had German and French kings.
If Obama become the president of USA it doesn't mean that Texas no longer belongs to USA.

Maybe the Tang claim is not made on the embassy Web sites. It IS made in the government-run "Tibet Museum" in Lhasa.

You missed the point about the Yuan Dynasty. The claim that Tibet became part of China in the Yuan because both were part of the same larger government is like saying that Scotland is part of Wales because they both are part of the same larger government.

Tibetan Human Rights wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe the Tang claim is not made on the embassy Web sites. It IS made in the government-run "Tibet Museum" in Lhasa.
You missed the point about the Yuan Dynasty. The claim that Tibet became part of China in the Yuan because both were part of the same larger government is like saying that Scotland is part of Wales because they both are part of the same larger government.

I can't remember any museum anywhere in China that claims that Tobet was a part of China since the Tang Dynasty.
BTW, can you read Chinese?
Your claim that that China and Tibet were part of a larger government is not support by fact.
We known there is a United Kingdom.
However, in the old days Tibet was just a tiny insignificant part of China under a strong central government in Beijing.
China was not a federation.