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.

  • Katieushka [they/them,she/her]
    ·
    4 years ago

    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

      • Katieushka [they/them,she/her]
        ·
        4 years ago

        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.