I said conditions, not roads. Look at the decrease in poverty. Look at the increase in children actually being able to complete primary school. Look at just about any metric you want and you will find that it has improved.
So fucking what? Of course it should improve, they're not fucking feudal lords, of course it's going to be a massive step up. But Tibet in the the 1950s is not the counterfactual we're comparing it to, it's the theoretical independent communist tibetan state.
The insistence that without the guiding hand of the Imperialist, the region would inevitably fall into authoritarianism, anarchism or owned by the "bad" imperalist, is an absolute classic piece of Imperialist propaganda.
Can you point to anything to suggest that the state that has successfully overthrown dozens of nations and has a “Tibetan Government-in-Exile” just waiting to take over wouldn’t be able to do so?
Because the US is not omnipotent, and more often than not, it completely falls flat on it's face?
The US has completely failed to pacify a nation that borders Tibet, that is both much smaller and less mountainous. A country that borders China had a very long war for it's independence, in which the US was actively involved for 10 years, and during that war it also ended up having to fight china itself. Falling to western imperialism is not inevitable, and any attempt to pretend otherwise it really just an attempt to legitimize chinese imperialism.
And, again, equivocating between the US and China is absurd.
Fundamentally, I think this where we're at an impasse. I think they absolutely are equivocal, both fundamentally being bourgeois states seeking to increase their power through imperialism - the only difference being danger - China is less dangerous to most of the world than the US, but to the Uyghur and Tibet, absolutely not.
Oh I see, colonialism is just fine when you build infrastructure.
deleted by creator
So fucking what? Of course it should improve, they're not fucking feudal lords, of course it's going to be a massive step up. But Tibet in the the 1950s is not the counterfactual we're comparing it to, it's the theoretical independent communist tibetan state.
deleted by creator
The insistence that without the guiding hand of the Imperialist, the region would inevitably fall into authoritarianism, anarchism or owned by the "bad" imperalist, is an absolute classic piece of Imperialist propaganda.
deleted by creator
Because the US is not omnipotent, and more often than not, it completely falls flat on it's face?
The US has completely failed to pacify a nation that borders Tibet, that is both much smaller and less mountainous. A country that borders China had a very long war for it's independence, in which the US was actively involved for 10 years, and during that war it also ended up having to fight china itself. Falling to western imperialism is not inevitable, and any attempt to pretend otherwise it really just an attempt to legitimize chinese imperialism.
Fundamentally, I think this where we're at an impasse. I think they absolutely are equivocal, both fundamentally being bourgeois states seeking to increase their power through imperialism - the only difference being danger - China is less dangerous to most of the world than the US, but to the Uyghur and Tibet, absolutely not.
deleted by creator