• thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
    ·
    1 day ago

    It's a historical fact. Parts of Tibet were annexed by the Qing, parts weren't, but in the chaos of the breakdown of the Qing Tibet was able to wrestle some de facto independence and was governed separately, outside of control of the Chinese. The CPC brought Tibet back under control, and again I'm arguing that this invasion was a good thing and freed Tibet. But it still was an aggressive invasion.

      • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        1 day ago

        You're conflating two things. I'm talking about the PRC invasion of Tibet in 1950, after which they agreed to join China. The 1959 uprising is indeed a decade afterwards and involves the total dissolution of any Tibetan autonomy, but prior to 1950 Tibet was claiming themselves as an independent sovereign nation. I'm talking about the Battle of Chamdo in 1950, where the PRC "invaded" Tibet, after which Tibet "joined" China. The 1959 rebellion is clearly a case of the PRC putting down an internal rebellion. The 1950 invasion is a bit murkier, given the confused semi-autonomous status of Tibet at the time.

      • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
        ·
        1 day ago

        I mean they invaded Tibet and conquered it. That was "aggression." You can also interpret it as putting down an internal rebellion, but regardless deploying troops to a territory that you currently do not control and using force/violence to wrestle back control is "aggressive." Note that doesn't imply negative or positive connotations, "aggressive" is a neutral term. Again, I want to reemphasize the idea that I think this "aggression" was an unequivocally good thing.