Hi, I've lurked here for a while and created this account because this question is something I've been thinking about. Like most of you, I am worried about the new cold war on China by the West. That said though, on the question of Tibet I feel like some people can be inconsistent or intellectually dishonest about it...
I'm not saying we should balkanize China now in 2021 and I'm not a FREE TIBET fanatic, but I find it strange how so many on the anti-imperialist left (of which I'd consider myself a member) justify the initial annexation of Tibet in the 50s. Yes, I'm aware that Tibet used to be a much more backwards-ass place, and I'm not a fan of the Dalai Lama. But is the argument that it was OK because it made Tibet a better place to live in not basically a neocon sentiment ("we're bringing freedom and democracy")? Obviously neocons are not sincere about this kind of thing, but I'm of the position that unprovoked military occupation is pretty much always wrong.
Anyways, that's what I'm thinking about. Hoping this can open up a good discussion without things getting too heated lol.
Military intervention is often bad and imperialist, but not always so
This times 1000. It’s like “the state”. There’s a big difference between a worker’s state established to be a bridge between capitalism and communism, and the bourgeois state we live in today. These organs are just tools, tools can be used for good or evil.
It's like if your only experience with knives is being stabbed and you don't know they can be used to cut food.
Why is this question being posed from the starting point of the Tibet being an independent nation that China (as the PRC, in this case) suddenly decided to attack?
Tibet had been under Chinese control for centuries, and just because some elements within Tibet claimed to be independent amidst the ensuing chaos and instability surrounding the defeat of the Qing Dynasty and the line of Chinese imperial dynasties ceasing to exist in the 1911 war, does not make it is so. The Kuomintang still considered it to be part of China (as ROC).
Recognition of Tibet as independent as far as the west is concerned has always been entirely dependent of its interests at that particular moment in time, as one should expect. https://archive.vn/36owk
The ROC still claims Mongolia and Tuva, Russia, along with a bunch of other small bits of land.
Just would like to say thanks to most people in this thread, lots of good sources and info here for me to go through.
There are criticisms to be made of China in Tibet, especially in the Dengist era. But the reuniting of the TAR with China is not one of them.
Tibet had a long history of unification with China, albeit with considerable autonomy. Their Government was aligned with the KMT (who also wanted to unite them into China) and only ejected them once PRC control was clear.
After that they attempted to join the Taiwanese government and refused to meet PRC representatives who offered them full political internal control in exchange for a recognition of Chinese sovereignty, and PRC control of defense and trade (Essentially what they had had until the collapse of the Empire.)
It's hard given the curcumstances to regard Tibet as anything but a hostile KMT affiliated state on their border in a strategic position.
There were plenty of other local regions under defacto independent warlord control in the inter war era. Was China equally wrong to absorb say Sinkiang?
Recommend everyone in this thread read dragon in the land of snow, by far the best history of modern Tibet. It criticizes the exile government while also criticizing the PRC for various actions its taken over the years ultimately taking a pro Tibet but anti exile government position. By far the most balanced history you'll find that is based on archive sources.
One review I saw of it said "It will irritate both Chinese and Tibetan chauvinists as it explodes their myths, misunderstandings, and propaganda," which I'd agree with.
Caveat, I'm pretty sure the author Tsering Shakya has occasionally done stuff with radio free Asia, which is very unfortunate, but looks like Rfa just using them since they are anti PRC. The book is pretty much the only one I can find based on archival evidence that is anti exile government and anti PRC. However the author has also written for SCMP, which Alibaba owns, before about Himalayan politics. Usually deriding India's right wing govt fucking with border negotiations that Bhutan and Nepal would otherwise be able to settle with China.
Another source is Wang Lixiong, who writes about Tibet and Xinjiang from within China. Verso put out a book of a dialog between Wang and Shakya trying to articulate what Tibetan liberation should mean. Wang also wrote a book on Xinjiang, My West China; Your East Turkestan, documenting struggles in securitizing the region in 2007, arguing it was effectively being Palestinized and the PRC's policies were a self fulfilling prophecy of conflict. I don't know if that book has an English translation though. Though Wang also stands to be criticized as some of his writing takes an eerily similar tone to that of western colonizer educating natives even as he derides PRC policy as doing that. Both writers came to the conclusion that Tibet as part of China is a construct of Chinese nationalism, and absent radical change in how China manages its imperial holdovers, its obsession with "anti-separatism" will inexorably turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Yeah but the genuine question implied bad things about China and the hivemind can't let that happen.
yeah the west will just place the dalai lama on the throne and leave it be, and that would be awful. tibet is an autonomous region with its own armed forces and police so its not like china controls everything about tibet.
Except Americans prop up awful regimes purely for convenience (the Saudis did 9/11)
Yes but that's kind of a shitty answer, tibet had been free for quite a while, and they were part of china only because the chinese empire feudalized it. You cant just say this place is part of china cos its part of china
Oh sure but after hundreds of years id suppose a population becomes assimilated into the one of the feudal centre etc. Like there isnt a point in asking for burgundy's independence now but there is a point for like basque independence.
Sincere question about Germany:
Hi, I’ve lurked here for a while and created this account because this question is something I’ve been thinking about. Like most of you, I am worried about the cold war on Russia by the West. That said though, on the question of Germany I feel like some people can be inconsistent or intellectually dishonest about it…
I’m not saying we should balkanize the USSR now in 1950 and I’m not a FREE THE GDR fanatic, but I find it strange how so many on the anti-imperialist left (of which I’d consider myself a member) justify the initial invasion of Germany in the 40w. Yes, I’m aware that Germany used to be a much more backwards-ass place, and I’m not a fan of Hitler. But is the argument that it was OK because it made Germany a better place to live in not basically a neocon sentiment (“we’re bringing freedom and democracy”)? Obviously neocons are not sincere about this kind of thing, but I’m of the position that unprovoked military occupation is pretty much always wrong.
Anyways, that’s what I’m thinking about. Hoping this can open up a good discussion without things getting too heated lol.
Can people who copypasta just admit that it is the posting equivalent of repeating what the person was saying in a dumb voice to make them feel bad? Rather than try to hang onto the delusion that it's "funny" or "clever" or even an "homage". Just be honest with yourself and admit that its lazy, unfunny, and really quite mean.
Especially to someone who is asking an honest question and wants to have a conversation.
Can people who copypasta just admit that it is the posting equivalent of repeating what the person was saying in a dumb voice to make them feel bad? Rather than try to hang onto the delusion that it’s “funny” or “clever” or even an “homage”. Just be honest with yourself and admit that its lazy, unfunny, and really quite mean.
Especially to someone who is asking an honest question and wants to have a conversation.
Ugh I hate facetious responses like this they just make me feel like a big fucking idiot :(
Look man if ya can’t tell the difference between liberating the subjugated peoples of a slave state and imperialists making an excuse to invade a country for oil, I dunno what to tell ya. But I don’t wanna be a dick so also here’s an article
I'll check out the article. And to be clear I don't think what China did to Tibet is even remotely as bad as what the US does all around the globe, just seems a bit iffy to me. Like I said, I'm not a FREE TIBET guy.
Tbh this is such a bizarre comparison to me I'm struggling to hold it together in my mind. It seems to imply the USSR invaded Germany on its own initiative to stop the Holocaust, or Tibet invaded China first and China was just fighting back after whatever its equivalent of Belarus is had one third of its population massacred by the Tibetans. Am I missing something
Am I missing something
It's just pointless shit-flinging at OP for being insufficiently ML.
Well yes, but I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that maybe I missed something about Tibet's Lebensraum ambitions lmao
Sincere question about the CSA:
Hi, I’ve lurked here for a while and created this account because this question is something I’ve been thinking about. Like most of you, I am worried about the overthrow of Reconstruction by the South. That said though, on the question of the Confederacy I feel like some people can be inconsistent or intellectually dishonest about it…
I’m not saying we should balkanize the USA now in 1900 and I’m not a THE SOUTH WILL RISE AGAIN fanatic, but I find it strange how so many on the anti-imperialist left (of which I’d consider myself a member) justify the initial annexation of the South in the 60s. Yes, I’m aware that the South used to be a much more backwards-ass place, and I’m not a fan of Lincoln. But is the argument that it was OK because it made the South a better place to live in not basically a neocon sentiment (“we’re bringing freedom and democracy”)? Obviously neocons are not sincere about this kind of thing, but I’m of the position that unprovoked military occupation is pretty much always wrong.
Anyways, that’s what I’m thinking about. Hoping this can open up a good discussion without things getting too heated lol.
