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.
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.