- Registration time
- Last login
- Online time
- 90 Hour
- Reading permission
I can't tell a problem from lobsang's post.
As far as I know, traditionally, Tibet was in two parts – Tibet in the mountains, and Tibet on the closer location to Han's areas – in current Sichuan, Gang Su, and Qinghai.
The Tibetans live closer to Han areas, have much more influence from Han, and they do have inter-marriages from thousand years ago. The Tibetans who live closer to Han areas, did not been controlled by the Kings in Tibet, but they were granted a title of "Tu Si", which is similar to "chief" from Chinese emperors until CCP took over this area.
This is the reality in past thousand years. This part of Tibet was controlled by China much earlier than entire Tibet.
But the social system they had was very different from Han's, as lobsang mentioned, they had a sort of caste system similar to other part of Tibet and India's, I mean the old India.
I see nothing wrong from lobsang's post. Even the ethnic, Tibet and Han are both Mongols. I am surprise you said you can easily tell the difference between Han and Tibet. I can not.
I am Han. If I stand with a Tibetan and a Cantonese, anyone would say I am much closer to the Tibetan, not the Cantonese, note here, Cantonese are all Han. Not sure how could you tell the difference between Han and Tibet.
Of course Tibetans are very different from Indians, you don't need any knowledge, just look at them for 2 seconds, you will know why.
Why is it a problem when lobsang mentioned that?
It is interesting to compare India's caste system with China's separation between urban residents and rural residents.
Yes, there is a divide between the two, but It was not designed for one group taking advantage to another. In fact, in the first 10 or more years (1950s-1960s), the urban residents didn't have any advantage to rural residents. Many people came back villages from cities because in many part of China, village life is better than city's.
The real difference was happened between 1960s to 1990s. In this 30 years, urban living standard became better than rural areas. Rural residents no longer had a chance to work in the cities thus they have to stay in villages for much less income compare to the urban residents.
It is of course unfair, but it was not designed for that. In fact, Mao and his senior colleague's relatives were mostly rural residents, and their relatives, as any other rural residents, had no chance to become urban citizens too.
The divide between urban and rural residents are not for who takes who's advantage, or who is upper class than whom. It was simply a communism ideology – everyone is fixed in a certain job, which as the same as other communism ideology, is a failure.
As a same ideology, the moving between cities are not allow neither in this 30 years. It of course had no any meaning of "class", it is simply a stupid communism idea.
It is unfair to say it equals to caste system.
From sometimes in 1990s, the divide between the two became meaningless, because no one in the cities is secured on job, the supply of food is fully marketed, real estate is marketed too. So, if a farmer wants, he can choose live in city, if he wants, he can buy a house in city.
Actually, when an urban resident lost his job, he will live more miserable than a farmer.
Does this sound like another version of caste system?
[ Last edited by luf2004 at 2006-3-25 01:14 PM ]