fyfpoon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Tibetans are referred to be the current natives of Tibet. Their
> ancestors might have come from elsewhere.
The ancestors of all people, except for some Africans, came from
somewhere else.
Thus the question whether
> they should be allowed to have their own state branches into several
> other related questions:
> (1)Does Tibet belong to the Tibetans? Who own Tibet?
If anybody 'owns' Tibet it is those people who live there and whose
ancestors have lived there for recorded history.
> (2)Tibetans are one of the 58 ethnic groups in China and are not
> necessarily the largest group. Should the rest of the 57 ethnic
> groups be consulted in order to decide if this group of people named
> Tibetans be allowed to form their own state?
The Tibetans had their own state until China invaded it.
> (3)Given the rapid pace of economic development in Tibet and the
> equally rapid change of demographics, the definition of Tibetans is
> getting to become the 'people of Tibet' in much the same way we call
> the 'people of Hawaii' or the 'people of Texas' or the 'people of Cook
> Island'. So who are included in this group of people name Tibetans,
> like who are included in Canadians or Americans? I think a more valid
> question is: who are the major tax payers in a province? So consult
> the group that pays the most tax first before running away with
> whether or not this or not _should_ or _should_ not be/do this and
> that.
> (4)From (3), various interesting questions come: should the people of
> Ontario be allowed to have their own state?
If the majority of those Canadians living in Ontario want to form their
own state they should be permitted to do so. The same applies to the
people of Hong Kong.
How about the people of
> Or the people of Shanghai?
Not sure.
> Or the people of Vancouver Island?
Yes
>Or the people of Hawaii?
Yes
R
