Ok, I give up. You are not able to answer a simple question, but for everyone else it will be clear that Tibet belonged to China since (at least) 1720. But since you reiterate that "I am arguing" with myself when I ask if you agree, I guess that serves as an answer.

The status before 1720 that is a bit vague since there was significant influence from the chinese also then, but lets leave that for now. Clear is, however that the founding of the US is usually seen as the declaration of independence in 1776, well after the Chinese took ownership. If my memory serves me right the founding of Canada was a few years after, and not before that.

Thus, the chinese tradition in Tibet is longer than the European tradition in North America, and hardly the Tibetans are any more marginalized in Tibet than the Native americans are in North america. This indeed put you as a Canadian and the other US chinabashers far away from a position where you can point finger at China, claiming that they have "stolen" Tibet from the Natives and are "raping" the natives. If you don't see that, then indeed you are a brainwashed idiot. In fact, that makes you look a self-righteous bastard, who projects your own guilt for raping your own native population on others.

The Tibetans today are an integrated minority of the chinese people, one out of 56 nationalities that form the chinese people.

Feel free to read my message properly before replying. Thanks. I thought I said in clear English "it wasn't correct to say "almost all" of them "boycotting" opening ceremony." If you believe that stands for "make 4 out of 40 to "most" - then clrarly it is your brain that is "strangely wired".

For some reason I was sure you would prefer not to notice the question from my previous message. Hope the article helped you to realise europeans actually more excited about Tibet then americans. Rgds,

All I wanted you just to admit that. And it's not necessary about history. They weren't asked questions about the history. There are lot of other factors involved. For example preserving cultural identity, human rights, etc. (btw you failed to note that Dalai Lama never claimed Tibetan independence). Otherwise Hitler was right in 30s when prosecuted jews, since germany jews lived on a land that historically was always part of Germany. But I don't want to speculate on this. Just a point.

Anyway, if you read again my initial reply you'd notice I was confused by your reference to "american ignorants" as opposed to Europeans. At least now you admit "that there is a rampant ignorance on Tibetan history also in Europe". So why instead of "american dumbasses" don't you say "we european and american dumbasses should keep out of chinese internal affairs".

"The Chinese empire has ruled the region Tibet for longer than the U.S.A. has existed, so you americans should shut up or return to the Europe you came from, handing the land back to the native indians. The Tibet issue is chinese internal affairs and ignorant americans should keep out of these.

Of course, we think Americans are dumb assholes in Europe, but we need cheap labour to compete with the chinese so we might take you back anyhows"

I can see that on this forum it is you who left more posts about Tibet then anyone else. So if it is a "chinese internal affairs and ignorant americans should keep out of these" why European "ignorants" shouldn't. Tibetans and Chinese themselves will decide how they will build they future, not you.

Tibet belongs to the internal affairs of the Tibetans. When and why it came under Chinese power is irrelevant. If people aspire independence, "You haven't been independent since 1721" is an absurd reply. If people wish for removal of foreign control, the age and the nature of this control are irrelevant. It's like you tell me you're hungry cos you haven't eaten since Friday, and I tell you that since you haven't eaten for so long there is no point to eat for you at all.

When and why Tibet became part of china is extremely important, since it determines whether the Chinese claims are legitimate from an international law perspective or not.

Well then I assume you support the idea of indpendence for these guys as well:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/12/lakota-withdraw.html

I don't ...

Luckily world politics does not work the way that any nutcase with a gun can kill a few government officials, declare independence and then expect the world to recognize it.

So there's a press release, but it's hard for me to think it represents any body which represents  the Lakota in any significant manner otherwise I'd probably have found evidence about it in a news story on the website of the BBC, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the USA Today, or even the closest notable local paper of any size, the Sioux City Journal.  I have not, however, and all you've provided is a blog which may or may not be reliable.  Please explain why I should give any credence to this lame excuse for evidence.  I can find evidence of popular discontent among Tibetans of recent vintage, but the last organization showing significant popular discontent among Native Americans which I can think of was AIM which doesn't qualify as an independence movement.

You use the wrong historical analogies, Europe.  The Tibetans of the 1950s and before were in some important respects in a situation similar to that of Native Americans of the Old Northwest(the Great Lakes region) of the early 19th century.  Both were in a state of suzerainty on the frontier to a colossal neighbor.  That meant client leaders of intact peoples who were dominated by the larger neighbor, but who if honestly asked of the legitimacy of the neighbor who dominated them would regard them as alien and illegitimate in their claims to their area.  Both looked for opportunities to play the nation which dminated them off of other powers(in the Native Americans' case the British in Canada and in the case of Tibet, Britain, America or whatever rivals China's government had in Central Asia at the time) and to gain greater independence of action.  These were not the actions of rebels, but of people yoked to an empire which served ends other than their own welfare.  America is beginning to put this shameful history behind it somewhat by acknowledging the rights of those we have wronged historically, but the process of greater incorporation and domination by the larger power has reached a point here where true national independence is no longer practical in political terms.  To show why that is the case one reservation I spent time on had eight times as many white residents within its borders as tribal members.  Such is not the case in Tibet today, but will be with the legacy of alienated and marginalized people our unfortunate history produced if China does not change its course.  Additionally, Europe, you missed another part of the point.  A democratic system offers Native Americans a chance at some self governance on a local level and a way to begin to address such grievances without violence or political separation, an option unavailable to Tibetans or Turkic Muslims.