Comments by "rejvaik" (@rejvaik00) on "Tibet: China’s Unwilling Vassal" video.

Well Tibet is in a difficult position because it's technically been part of the Chinese Empire since the late 1600s And conquest and formal control was established by the Chinese in 1720, Albeit during a brutal sacking of Lasha and nearly burning the entire city to the ground So understand this isn't me defending the Chinese but to help others understand that their historic claim to the land does have some international legal merit because they have been the rulers of the land for over 250 years Now to be fair the Right of Conquest isn't allowed anymore by international law ever since 1949 but that's neither here nor there and not helpful in Tibet's current situation IMO though they aren't worthy to the claim, because of how badly the Tibetans have been treated as a result of those 250 years and the subsequent half century since Chinese control was reestablished in 1953 But unfortunately Tibet finds itself in a very similar position to Taiwan where it's not a legally recognized country and even worse is that unlike Taiwan who was at one point given a seat at the UN, Tibet never had such a luxury Meaning there's no historical legacy within the recent global world order that Tibet can point to and therefore seek help in regard to it's situation
5
China has been in Tibet ever since 1690, they formally conquered it and annexed it in 1720 but they treated the Tibetans horribly as a result And have burned Lasha many times since to pacify the Tibetans That's a why it was no surprise that when imperial China fell in the early 20th century Tibet was overjoyed that their 300 year as a colony was seemingly at an end They tried very hard to organize themselves and gain international recognition as an independent nation but it was unsuccessful And Chinese control was formally reestablished in 1953 We may think that was the the first time China dominated Tibet because it was the first time the collective West was exposed to the issue but that's not the case
5
It's also because Tibet has unfortunately been a part of imperial China for 200 years ever since 1720 Meaning most other nations see Tibet as sovereign territory of the Chinese empire and it's successor state the PRC
4
I'm my opinion I'm in agreement because the Chinese lost all rights to the lands with how horribly they treated the Tibetans And that's been going by the Chinese ever since the first burning of Lahsa when Chinese control was permanently established in 1720 However there's a reason why the legality of Tibet has always been up in the air and deemed a controversial issue primarily because it was never a sovereign state after Imperial China annexed it in the early 18 century and never did receive worldwide international recognition when imperial China fell And the issue has been further complicated because is has always been a part of China ever since it was formally annexed in 1720
3
Yeah Tibet has been struggling for a LOOOONG time to refrain from Chinese dominance and influence Around the same time a nation was being born in 1776 in the new world continent Lasha was being burned to the ground by vengeful imperial Chinese
1
Not that I'm defending the current Chinese regime nor their modern day claims on Tibet, because of the Chinese mistreatment of Tibetans But in a purely historical sense yes Tibet has technically been a part of China since the late 1600s and early 1700s, they gained it through conquest It's not a justification for their continued rule however, China had done many massacres such as in 1720 when they burned Lasha to the ground inorder to pacify the Tibetans from revolution and secession from the Chinese empire at the time
1
@fargr5926 And I admire your unwillingness to research when the babyboomers we're born And when they turned into their 20s and 30s because the counter culture the was the hippie movement is almost entirely exclusive to that of the boomers reaching adult maturity and wanting to engage in coitus
1
@tibetanchineseofchina and the Lahsa revolt from Beijing rule in 1724
1