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.
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
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