pageok
pageok
pageok
Bleg for time data on colonialism:

International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge, in an April 26 interview in the Financial Times, urged Western patience with China's oppression of Tibet. Rogge stated that the People's Republic of China has existed since 1949, and he noted that European colonial powers abused their colonies for a long time. He concluded: "we owe China to give them time."

Does anyone know a good source for the lengths of European colonialism on a colony-by-colony basis? Some colonial periods (e.g., Portugal's rule of Angola) were very long, while others (some of the latter European conquests in Africa) were not much longer than the nearly six decades that Rogge imputes to the PRC's colonial rule of Tibet.

I realize that one could argue about whether Rogge is correct in dating Chinese colonialism only to the time when the current regime came to power. The French government went through a complete regime change as a result of the French revolution; would French colonial masters in 1791 then be entitled to tell their colonial victims: "Please be patient with us; our regime has existed for only two years. Never mind that the previous French government put you under the French colonial thumb decades ago."

But let's just use Rogge's timeline. The Tibetans, Uighers, and Inner Mongolians have lived under PRC colonialism for nearly six decades. How long does this compare to the period of European rule of various colonies, as well as to the length of Russian/Soviet rule for the various captive nations which were part of Imperial Russia and the USSR?

MarkField (mail):
Wikipedia has a list of former European colonies, but it gives no dates. It's possible the links would let you put together your own chart (or that others have more time than I do right this minute).
5.3.2008 7:39pm
ithaqua (mail):
"International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge, in an April 26 interview in the Financial Times, urged Western patience with China's oppression of Tibet. Rogge stated that the People’s Republic of China has existed since 1949, and he noted that European colonial powers abused their colonies for a long time. He concluded: "we owe China to give them time.""

Rogge circa 1936: "Hitler has only been in power for a few years, and other European countries have had pogroms for centuries. We ought to give Germany some time..."

I wonder if the Chinese government has anyone of Riefenstahl 's caliber lined up to film the games?

(sorry, I don't have any contribution to make to your bleg. I'm not big on facts :P )
5.3.2008 7:56pm
Mac (mail):
Somehow, using others past bad behavior to justify bad behavior today, seems more than a little thin.

Also, the USSR would still be merrily tyrannizing those same countries if it were not for the US. We should switch from fighting to supporting those who seek colonies? Interesting.

However, Rogge is French, no? That would explain it.
5.3.2008 8:09pm
marc (mail):
"I don't have any contribution to make to your bleg. I'm not big on facts"; ha. Often enough, 'facts' are useless data that get in the way of doing what ought to be done.

While I respect that Professor Volokh, gentleman and scholar, is attempting to engage that man Rogge (for whom I have very little respect) in some way on his (Rogge's) own ground, more or less, I prefer simply to point out to the fellow that tyrants don't 'deserve' more time to pursue their barbarisms.
5.3.2008 8:20pm
Waldensian (mail):
I like Rogge's unspoken assumption -- that we should somehow care what the President of the IOC has to say about major political issues.

I'm not even sure I care what he has to say about the Olympics, for crying out loud.
5.3.2008 8:43pm
steven lubet (mail):
The French protectorate in Morocco lasted from 1912 to 1956. French colonialism in Tunisia was longer, 1882-1957; in Algeria it was longer still, 1830-1962.
5.3.2008 8:45pm
Eugene Volokh (www):
marc: I should note that the author of the post, whom you rightly respect, is David Kopel, gentleman and scholar.
5.3.2008 8:50pm
Hoosier:
The big name in 19th Century European colonization seems to be the Dutch historian Wesseling. (I can't remember his initials.) His book on African colonization was for quite some time the only study that covered the entire continent. But it took some time for a translation to appear. His latest is 'European Colonial Empires', which covers the global race for empire up to 1919. It was translated more or less immediately.

For the post WWI era, I think Holland's "European Decolonization" will give you the information for that period, including the Middle East. This is about the best you can do--at least as far as I can tell--in the scholarly literature. Though I suspect their must be an encyclopedia of European colonialism in my U's library with a chart and dates.

In recent decades, this just has not been an area that has produced a lot of broad, integrative work. Post-colonial studies is a huge trend, of course. But the thrust is "subaltern studies." Studying the imperial metropoles will not get a young scholar a job.
5.3.2008 9:16pm
Uthaw:
One could note that Japan colonized Taiwan in 1895, Manchuria in 1931, took over Germany's Asian colonies around 1915, and attempted to colonize China starting in 1937, but didn't get any slack from "world opinion" as a result. US opposition to Japan's imperialist expansion paved the way to war, and this war almost certainly wouldn't have happened if the US attitude in 1941 had been "Japan hasn't been colonialist nearly as long as the Europeans, so we owe Japan to give them time".
5.3.2008 9:26pm
Uthaw:
Among the longest-running colonies were the Portuguese ones (all dates obtained from wiki):

Angola: 1655 to 1975
Mozambique: 1505 to 1975
Guinea-Bissau: 1446 to 1974
Cape Verde: 1460 to 1975
São Tomé and Príncipe: 1470 to 1975
Goa: 1510 to 1961
Macau:1557 to 1999
Brazil: 1500 to 1822
5.3.2008 9:40pm
jvarisco (mail) (www):
Tibet's not really a colony, it's more a province of China. Colonies are by definition territorially distinct from the actual home nation.
5.3.2008 9:49pm
Crane (mail):
It seems a bit suspect to treat China's rule over Tibet as if it only started with the establishment of the current government. If you look at Asian history, China has ruled that region off and on for rather longer.

According to Wikipedia maps, Tibet came under the rule of China during the mid-1700's, though with a fair bit of autonomy. China lost control on account of the decline of the Qing dynasty and the increase in European meddling of the late 1800's, and got their military formally kicked out sometime around the turn of the century. Then they were distracted by civil war and Japanese invasion, but never actually gave up claim to Tibet, and promptly reconquered the place in 1950.

So, technically, China's been "colonizing" Tibet for just as long as those European colonial powers were active.
5.3.2008 10:10pm
Lior:
The Israeli annexation of Eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights has only been in force for 40 years. I wonder what Mr. Rogge would have to say about that (let alone about Judea and Samaria ...)
5.3.2008 10:18pm
Roy:
Japan occuppied Korea from 1905-1945, only 40 years nad only 35 formally, Korea's status in the Japanese Empire, like that of Taiwan (1895-1945) and was much like jvarisco's,really meaningless, province claim for PRC in Tibet.

In fact, by 1943 Japan's treatment of Taiwan wasn't functionally all that different from its treatment of Okinawa, and possibly more sensitive to local sentiments.

Of course if you really want the proper analogue of PRC and Tibet, it would be French Algeria, 1832-1962, 130 years, after all Algeria was an integrated full territory of France with full representatives in the National Assembly, huge colonization efforts and everything else.
5.3.2008 10:48pm
JB:
jvarisco,
Isn't the difference that colonies have distinct legal systems/no or lesser representation at the metropole?
5.3.2008 11:47pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Crane:


It seems a bit suspect to treat China's rule over Tibet as if it only started with the establishment of the current government. If you look at Asian history, China has ruled that region off and on for rather longer.


No, in point of fact prior to 1950 China NEVER ruled Tibet. Tibet was truly under the control of a foreign power only once, when it was conquered by the Mongols. The Mongols subsequently conquered China, so for a time Tibet and China were both under Mongol control, but even then Tibet was not administratively part of China and had a different relationship with the Mongol khan.

The period to which you refer in the late 18th century does represent the peak of Chinese influence in Tibet, but even then Tibet remained a sovereign nation. It was not a part of China with a certain amount of autonomy; rather, it was a sovereign nation subject to the influence of a more powerful neighboring state.

For a detailed examination of both the historical status of Tibet and its relationship with China and the question of Tibetan self-determination by scholars of international law I recommend
Tibet's Sovereignty and the Tibetan People's Right to Self-Determination
by Andrew G. Dulaney and Dennis M. Cusack of the Tibet Justice Center
and Dr. Michael van Walt van Praag of the Unrepresented Nations and Peoples
Organization. You can download the

entire document as a PDF file
or read it online
here.
5.3.2008 11:55pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Here is a list of information about colonization of Muslim countries that I assembled a while back in order to test claims about the effects of colonialism.

Afghanistan never really colonized by Europeans; British and Russian interventions during 19th century

Algeria French colony 1830-1958

Egypt British control 1882-1922 (overlapping Ottomans 1882-1918)

Indonesia Dutch colony 1800-1949

Iran never colonized by Europeans

Iraq British mandate 1918-1932

Jordan British mandate 1918-1946, nearly autonomous from 1921.

Kazakhstan Russian colony 1820-1991

Kuwait British protectorate 1918-1961

Lebanon French mandate, 1920-1943

Libya Italian colony 1911-1947, never fully under Italian control

Mali French colony, 1880-1960

Mauritania French colony, 1904-1960 (some areas not until 1912)

Morocco French protectorate, 1912-1956

Pakistan British colony 1857-1947

Saudi Arabia never colonized by Europeans

Sudan 1899-1956 British control

Syria French mandate 1920-1946, with much autonomy

Tunisia French protectorate, 1881-1956

Turkey never colonized by Europeans

Western Sahara Spanish protectorate, 1884-1975, currently occupied by Morocco
5.4.2008 12:01am
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
For a little perspective on this, the anthropologist Sol Tax tells the story of sitting on a hill above the Indian village (Lakota, I think) where he was doing fieldwork and suddenly being hit by the realization: "They're just waiting for us to leave".
5.4.2008 12:14am
DaSarge (mail):
Ah, another innovation in the obsequious art of paying the Dane-Geld! The IOC standing up to China in the same way it stood up to Germany in 1936.
5.4.2008 1:44am
advisory opinion:
United States - at least 250 years.

California, Nevada, Utah - 160 years.

Hawaii - 110 years.

The Chinese should say, give the Americans time. After all, it's been only 170 years since Native Americans were genocided and 50 years since Brown v. Board. They can't be expected to realize that Tibet is as much a de jure part of China as California is a de jure part of the United States.

Oh wait.
5.4.2008 3:34am
advisory opinion:

in point of fact prior to 1950 China NEVER ruled Tibet. Tibet was truly under the control of a foreign power only once, when it was conquered by the Mongols.
Actually, it did. Mongol emperors of the Yuan dynasty considered themselves emperor of China only - and not some greater Khanate. The dominions of China included Tibet. Ergo, Tibet was a part of sovereign China since the Yuan dynasty.

Yet apparently, a region under China's sovereign control for longer than the United States has been in existence remains only a "colony" whereas the United States and its possessions are glibly assumed to be a bona fide country.

Kopel's approach is no different than Aztlan-types asserting that California was illegally "colonized" by the United States and remains thus colonized - something he no doubt will not countenance.

It reeks of double standards and hypocrisy.
5.4.2008 3:42am
BGates:
The "games-of-chance-establishment"* operating groups of southern California have a plausible grievance against the United States similar to the Tibetan claim against China. The Aztlan types are Mexicans demanding the 'return' of California to them, which is like France trying to get Albania back. Long before the United States showed up in California, the imperial power there was Spain. And in between the United States and Spain, the imperial power in southern California was Mexico.

There are other important differences between rule by the United States and rule by the Chinese government, but I'll bet even advisory opinion knows what they are.

*6 letters, starts with 'c', triggers the spam filter.
5.4.2008 5:06am
advisory opinion:
Tibet was also an imperial power in its pomp. So the differences you are alluding to are not apparent.

As for differences in "rule" - of course. One is a democracy, the other a dictatorial autocracy, nominally communist. But differences in type of government have never been relevant to the question of the territorial sovereignty of states.

That is just more mischief from the separatism-stoking likes of Kopel. Bonus question: does the Independence Institute stand for Confederate secession?
5.4.2008 6:30am
Uthaw:
France trying to get Albania back.

France had Albania?
5.4.2008 12:00pm
Hoosier:
Uthaw--No.

But it did have a "King Zog." Which is even better.

And this might be what has the anti-semites all confusalated and cornfusified till this very day. "Albania". "America". Easy mistake to make, iddnit?
5.4.2008 12:11pm
Hoosier:
>>France trying to get Albania back.

>>>France had Albania?

Just occured to me as I was posting the above: Could that have been a distracted attempt to type "Alsace"?
5.4.2008 12:13pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Advisory Opinion:

Actually, it did. Mongol emperors of the Yuan dynasty considered themselves emperor of China only - and not some greater Khanate. The dominions of China included Tibet. Ergo, Tibet was a part of sovereign China since the Yuan dynasty.


You're confusing titles with reality. To begin with, the Mongols took control of Tibet in 1249 but did not take control of China until 1260 and did not formally establish the Yuan dynasty until 1279. Clearly their suzerainty over Tibet was in no way derivative of any Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. Furthermore, once the Mongol khan became Emperor of China, he did NOT incorporate Tibet into China. China under the Yuan was divided into twelve provinces, none of them including Tibet. Tibet was administered separately from China. Furthermore, while the Mongols ruled China directly, they ruled Tibet indirectly, by means of the indigenous Sakyapa hierarchs, via the relationship known as the cho-yon system.

Finally, it cannot be the case the China has ruled Tibet since the Yuan dynasty since, even if Tibet had been part of China during the Yuan, it was certainly independent afterward. In 1349 (prior to the successful Chinese rebellion against the Mongols) the Sakyapas were overthrown by Changchub Gyaltsen and the suzerainty of the Mongols was broken. Tibet maintained its independence until the Chinese invasion of 1950.
5.4.2008 2:17pm
advisory opinion:
And you're confusing yourself. No one claimed that the Yuan dynasty's sovereignty over Tibet is "derivative" of prior Chinese sovereignty over Tibet. That is a strawman of your own making.

Rather, the claim is that once Tibet was brought under Chinese sovereignty by the Yuan dynasty, it falls under a single sovereign: Yuan China. (And its successor states.)

Similarly, once the Channel Islands were brought under Anglo-Norman sovereignty as a result of the Norman Conquest, it continues to be retained by a single sovereign - the British Crown. The Channel Islands were Norman even before the Conquest. That they were not "derivative" of English sovereignty does not make them any less the sovereign concerns of the British Crown today.

By your logic, we would have to assert otherwise, which is counterfactual and absurd.

The same logic would render Hyderabad, Mysore, Punjab and half a dozen other princely states in the British Raj no longer under the sovereignty of present-day India. Yet no one recognizes in fact or in law the irredentist claims of Punjabi separatism today.

As such, your historical reasoning is feeble and inconsistent with the actual realities of sovereignty.

Furthermore, once the Mongol khan became Emperor of China, he did NOT incorporate Tibet into China. China under the Yuan was divided into twelve provinces, none of them including Tibet. Tibet was administered separately from China.

Nonsense. Maps representing the sovereign reach of the Yuan dynasty show otherwise:

http://depts.washington.edu/chinaciv/1xaryuan.htm

Lhasa is well within the boundaries demarcated.

And A.T. Grunfeld in Reassessing Tibet Policy, Foreign Policy in Focus: "Mongol conquests in the 13th century made Tibet part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state, and four centuries later the ethnic Manchu Qing dynasty further incorporated Tibet into China."

So there were two stages of incorporation, and your assertion is incorrect.

In 1349 (prior to the successful Chinese rebellion against the Mongols) the Sakyapas were overthrown by Changchub Gyaltsen and the suzerainty of the Mongols was broken. Tibet maintained its independence until the Chinese invasion of 1950.

Again, nonsense. You seem completely ignorant of the Qing pacification of Tibet under the Qianlong emperor. Tibet's de facto independence came only with the fall of the Qing dynasty and the interregnum of the Chinese Civil War, during which none of the factions gave up de jure sovereignty over Tibet. Following WWII and the end of the civil war, China reasserted de facto sovereignty over Tibet - never relinquishing its de jure sovereignty over the region in the interim.

Even if I bought wholesale into your inaccurate grasp of history (which apparently is relevant only from 1951) - it still wouldn't change the reality of Chinese de jure sovereignty over Tibet, which under the Seventeen Point Agreement concedes Chinese sovereignty over the region.

Consider it China's Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (except in China's case they actually have a valid historical claim).
5.4.2008 7:32pm
advisory opinion:
". . . during which none of the factions gave up de jure sovereignty over Tibet."

And I should add: Taiwan (qua China) claims sovereignty over Tibet till this day. Under Art. 26 of its Constitution (provisions for the National Assembly), "[t]he number of Delegates to be elected from Tibet shall be prescribed by law."

Not even democratic Taiwan is willing to give up historical sovereignty over Tibet! Kopel's attempted fragmentation of China's (whether the PRC or ROC) territorial integrity therefore hits a brickwall even with his putative allies - the Taiwanese.
5.4.2008 7:58pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Advisory Opinion:

I made no argument about Yuan sovereignty being derivative of Chinese. I merely mentioned that as an aside. Curious that you then pick up on this and make it a strawman of your own.


Even if I bought wholesale into your inaccurate grasp of history (which apparently is relevant only from 1951) - it still wouldn't change the reality of Chinese de jure sovereignty over Tibet, which under the Seventeen Point Agreement concedes Chinese sovereignty over the region.


The Seventeen Point Agreement was void from its inception as a matter of international law. When it was signed in 1951 most of Tibet was occupied by Chinese troops, as a result of which it has no validity. Moreover, the Tibetans who signed it lacked the plenipotentiary power to do so.

In any case, it is you who are ignorant of history and incapable of carrying out an argument. I give specifics and you respond with vague generalities. You assert that I ignore the so-called further incorporation of Tibet into China by the Qian Long Emperor, but in fact I already referred to it. Perhaps you are too ignorant of Chinese history to realize that the Qian Long Emperor's reign was at the end of the 18th century? As I noted previously, that period was the peak of Chinese influence on Tibet, but Tibet retained its existence as a separate nation with its own ruler and administration.

As to the Yuan Dynasty, I explained the actual structure of the Mongol administration of Tibet and China and how it shows that Tibet was not part of China. You do not deny this point, but merely point to a map that shows China proper along with Tibet as "Yuan China". Do you not realize that for purposes such as this the administrative details are not shown? If you can find evidence that my description of the actual structure of the Empire is wrong in the form of a contrary description by qualified historians of the period, then you'll have an argument.

I note that you have ignored and thereby conceded my point that Tibet overthrew the Mongols and their Sakyapa clients and became fully independent in 1349, so even if Tibet was part of China during the Yuan Dynasty, it was independent for centuries afterward, contrary to your assertion that Tibet remained part of China until the fall of the Qing.
5.4.2008 11:00pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Advisory Opinion:

A further note on the Seventeen Point Agreement. Even if it had been valid when signed, it became invalid as a result of China's egregious breaches, as noted by the Dalai Lama in his 1959 statement. The agreement promised Tibet autonomy, no change in governmental structure, and respect for Tibetan religion, among other things. China did not abide by these provisions.
5.4.2008 11:24pm
Harry Eagar (mail):
That's a highly selective list of colonies.

Where's Ireland? (1170-2008 and counting)

Egypt? (1577, IIRC, to -- depending on your point of view -- around 1840, or 1882, whatever)

Basque territory (around 600 years)

Kiev (about 800)

etc, etc

Sikkim has been a colony of India since 1975, but nobody ever puts a Free Sikkim sticker on the bumper.

On the other hand, claims that Hawaii is a colony are ahistorical.
5.4.2008 11:28pm
Bill Poser (mail) (www):
Advisory Opinion:

In reply to your assertion that there was no khanate that included China during the Yuan dynasty, see Hidehiro Okada's "China as a Successor State to the Mongol Empire" in "The Mongol Empire and Its Legacy", edited by Reuven Amitai-Preiss and David Morgan, Brill, 1999, pp. 260-272.
The following is from pp. 263-4.

Thus the Chinese emperorship lost its most important attribute, its centrality, and was replaced by the North Asian khanship. The Chinese kept calling their khans emperors, but those emperors were no longer the center of the traditional Chinese world only but in fact a Chinese aspect of the khans ruling the vast Mongol Empire and its successor states.

The Mongol Yuan dynasty lost China in 1368. This by no means put an end to the dynasty, for China was only one of its colonies.
5.5.2008 12:11am
advisory opinion:
The Seventeen Point Agreement was void from its inception as a matter of international law. When it was signed in 1951 most of Tibet was occupied by Chinese troops, as a result of which it has no validity.

There was no principle in international law which states that military occupation invalidates treaty law. This would invalidate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which was signed in occupied Mexico. Most instruments of surrender in the aftermath of the second world war would be invalidated. The Treaty of San Francisco would be void, as it was signed during the occupation of Japan. Wales would be illegally annexed to the British Crown, pursuant to the Treaty of Aberconwy signed under English occupation and duress. Once again, your assertions are plainly incorrect.

Perhaps you are too ignorant of Chinese history to realize that the Qian Long Emperor's reign was at the end of the 18th century?

Since I cited: "Mongol conquests in the 13th century made Tibet part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state, and four centuries later the ethnic Manchu Qing dynasty further incorporated Tibet into China."

. . . perhaps you should read what I wrote with greater care?

As I noted previously, that period was the peak of Chinese influence on Tibet, but Tibet retained its existence as a separate nation with its own ruler and administration.

False. China would not have had to pacify Tibet if it was truly a "separate nation with its own ruler" as you claim. That would be like saying that New York has its own governor, therefore it is a separate nation - a ridiculous argument.

Again, Qing troops were permanently garrisoned in Tibet under the Qianlong emperor and China directly AND indirectly administered Tibet. Pamela Kyle Crossley, A Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology: "In 1720 Qing regiments of Qinghai and Sichuan retook Lhasa. A permanent Eight Banners garrison was established and as in the case of the Chakhars noble administration was displaced by the commissioners of the Imperial Colonial Office (amban), who were basically political informants to the emperor. The kingship was abolished, and Tibet was thus stripped of claims to secular political independence."

Your claim that Tibet "retained its existence as a separate nation" is false. That no one - not the British, not India, and not even the present Dalai Lama recognizes the separate sovereign status of Tibet should indicate that your revisionist history is suspect.

you can find evidence that my description of the actual structure of the Empire is wrong

I cited the map AND the historian Grunfeld, a point you chose to omit. Tibet was "part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state". The point about the sovereignty of the Crown over the Channel Islands, which has been administered separately for 800 years but nevertheless remains a sovereign Crown possession, you also evade.

I note that you have ignored and thereby conceded my point that Tibet overthrew the Mongols and their Sakyapa clients

You also ignored plenty of what I wrote. Shall I conclude that you concede all points by that logic?

When I choose not to address points because I treat them as an aside, it is apparently a "concession." Yet when I do address your leading point, I am told that you "merely mentioned that as an aside. Curious that you then pick up on this"!

Given the fact that it was your first point in the leading paragraph of your response, it's not really that curious. The more cogent explanation would be that you have no response, in which case you concede the point.

Moreover, given that the Ming dynasty recalled Yuan officials of the administration and granted titles to them, the Ming at the very least continued to assert de jure sovereignty over Tibet, even if its de facto power on the ground was patchy at best. Dawa Norbu in China's Tibet Policy notes that: "the Chinese empire reached the zenith of its territorial expansion under the Mongol emperors, and it was therefore to be expected that the Ming successors would lay claim to all the lands and lords brought under varying degrees of Mongol control." Since the Ming could not "spare any military forces to back up its tributary claims", its assertion of sovereign authority was purely administrative - imperial edicts, the granting of titles (accepted by Tibetan officials) to the bureuacracy, and so on. However, this changed within a mere decade.

Twitchett &Loewe, The Cambridge History of China: "In November 1378 Mu Ying . . . was appointed to lead an expedition to pacify Tibet and western Szechwan. . . . He distinguished himself in battle against the 'eighteen Tibetan tribes'. . . . By October of 1379 Mu Ying had scored major victories against the Tibetans."

While the Ming never reasserted the level of physical control of the Yuan, and their de facto military presence was at best sporadic, it is undeniable that the Ming reasserted nominal sovereignty within a decade of accession. How the tributary relation translates to the modern view of sovereignty is arguable at best given its sporadic nature, and because there is no clear answer but only plausible arguments from either side, there is not much of a point to addressing the point at elaborate length as I have just done. Nothing is "conceded" as a consequence of this observation.

A further note on the Seventeen Point Agreement. Even if it had been valid when signed, it became invalid as a result of China's egregious breaches

Like the egregious breaches of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo? Samora &Simon, A History of the Mexican-American People: "Thus violations of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, in spirit and in fact, were
a common occurrence from the day it took effect."

Treaty violations do not give rise to invalidation on your say so.

As for Okada's novel historiographical analysis, it doesn't help your argument. There was no single, all-encompassing khanate, and he does not dispute that. There were multiple khanates, with the Chaghadai and Kipchak Khanates distinct from the "Chinese aspect" which included Tibet and is the predecessor state of the subsequent dynastic iterations of China. Even if we accept his analysis, all it would mean is that the "Chinese aspect" is identical with the sovereign Khanate that controlled Tibet.

The overthrow of the successive royal houses of England did not mean the end of the Crown's assertion of sovereignty over Wales anymore than the overthrow of the Yuan meant an end to sovereignty asserted over Tibet by the succeeding dynastic sovereigns of China.

Your contrary reasoning is simply counterfactual.
5.5.2008 9:36am
advisory opinion:
Of course, if you concede that California = Mexico, there's nothing left to discuss.

But you won't. You want to have your cake and eat it. Sheer hypocrisy.
5.5.2008 9:47am
Jam:
Philippines
1565 - 1898 Spanish
1898 - 1946 united States of America, although occupied by
the Japanese for a few years.

Puerto Rico
1493 - 1898 Spanish
1898 - today united States of America, although, finally
in 1947 PR was "granted" the right to
democratically elect their governor

I do consider Hawaii a colony because of how these uSA did; forced the Queen to abdicate. There is nothing "ahistorical" about Queen Lydia Liliʻuokalani.

The South? The land "acquired" through Guadalupe-Hidalgo?
5.6.2008 1:55pm
David M. Nieporent (www):
I cited the map AND the historian Grunfeld, a point you chose to omit. Tibet was "part of a Mongol-ruled Chinese state". The point about the sovereignty of the Crown over the Channel Islands, which has been administered separately for 800 years but nevertheless remains a sovereign Crown possession, you also evade.
But that point refutes your argument. They are Crown Dependencies, but not part of the U.K. That's exactly what Bill is saying about Tibet: that even if the Yuan had sovereignty over Tibet, it wasn't part of China.
5.6.2008 2:26pm