We are searching data for your request:
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Was the "1959 Tibetan uprising", sometimes called "1959 Tibetan rebellion" really an uprising/rebellion? Why is it called "uprising"?
"uprising" to me signifies something violent, but the events in Lhasa in 1959 started with artillery towards Tibetan protesters in an area that was controlled by the Tibetan government. There were very few attacks against PRC forces. It seems to me that it was for the most part resistance to China taking over full control of their county (Which they didn't have according to the 17 point agreement)?
It was connected to violent resistance in other parts of Tibet, but these didn't start in 1959.
Perhaps for Tibetans, it was when they stood up to China taking over their country? And this has then become "uprising" in English? (They are referring to the start of it as the "Tibetan Uprising Day")
(I am writing about this in my own language, and I am not sure what I should call it)
Although interested parties disagree in very fundamental questions, it seems that both of them agree in that it was an uprising. Tibetans in exile commemorate it in the Tibetan Uprising Day, the Dalai Lama refers to it as uprising, and for the Chinese government it was a reactionary uprising of the Tibetan elite (according to Wikipedia).
World history in the last century is full of incidents where the opposing parties extensively argued about if those were uprisings, peaceful demonstrations, peace-keeping operations, banditry acts, or anything else, and even nowadays there is an ongoing trial whose main point of contention is if a given event was an uprising or it wasn't. However, about the 1959 Tibetan uprising everybody involved says it was an uprising. Whether that uprising or its suppression were legitimated is another question without any agreed answer in the foreseeable future.