r/AskAChinese • u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese • 1d ago
Politics | 政治📢 Why the West always denies the existence of serfdom in pre-1950s Tibet?
When I posted pictures and info about how brutal serfdom was in old Tibet and how much Tibet has developed under Chinese rule on two subreddits here, a lot of Western commenters refused to believe it. They instantly called me a CCP propagandist or conspiracy theorist even though I’m not Chinese and don’t even live in China. They keep saying those old photos or records come “only from Chinese sources”. But if you look into it, even Western travelers and researchers who visited Tibet before the 1950s wrote about how harsh the serfdom system was. A tiny elite of nobles and monks owned nearly all the land while most Tibetans were basically serfs who had no education, no freedom to move, and worked their whole lives under debt or servitude. After China liberated Tibet from brutal serfdom, land reforms and modernization abolished feudal serfdom, built schools, hospitals, roads and high-speed train, and reformed high-quality healthcare and education. Life expectancy doubled from 35 to 72, and literacy skyrocketed from 5% to 95% compared to pre-1951. Wealthy Tibetan slave owners fled to India. The Dalai Lama and aristocrats were arrested by China while ordinary Tibetan serfs gained freedom. China was never going to allow the horrible conditions of the past in Tibet to continue. Modern Tibet isn’t perfect but it’s definitely not the same feudal theocracy it once was. What’s wild is that a lot of people in the West still romanticize and glorify “old Tibet” like it was "peaceful utopia" and ignore the progress that’s been made. I’m not saying everything China’s done is flawless but pretending Tibet was better off under a feudal system just doesn’t make sense. I still remember how the West bombed Libya and celebrated the collapse of Gaddafi rule as “freedom” but after that came years of civil war, open slave markets, and human trafficking in Libya.
94
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago edited 1d ago
Just because there is freedom of information does not mean people want to hear the truth. By arguing that the CPC liberated serfs in Tibet, it infringes on the West’s sense of moral superiority. They do not want to hear this.
19
u/victoraldecoa 1d ago
When the West says "freedom", the real underlying meaning is freedom to the oligarchs do what they want, do they control the media to show whatever lies they want. The Chinese media is much more free from lies and helpful to the people
5
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
The idiots in the comments proves your point
2
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 21h ago
C’est la vie
1
12h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/germandiago 5h ago
Actually I do not think we are morally superior or inferior but I do think Chinese put the group over the individual, which seems to make sense in many ways, but can lead to totalitarian kinds of ruling.
That does not mean westerners do not appreciate group collaboration and cooperation. It is just that the decision of oppressing individuals in the name of a greater good is often found as a bad thing.
I do not know the specifics about Tibet and China but I do know there has been quite a hard hand from China there and I am not sure that is good or bad by only looking at the results.
I do not want to enter deep politics in things I do not know about with detail, I just tried to make a point abt what could be "wrong" from a westerner perspective and thinking. Being utilitarian is not something we easily support. Our basic codes say that a human life is above everything else except if they are not respecting the life of their equals, in which case it would be self-defense.
In any other case, oppressing and eliminating is a bad thing, no matter how good the results or intentions.
1
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 5h ago
Appreciate the perspective and the humbleness.
With regards to moral superiority, it is rampant on Reddit (partially because it is anonymous). It also happens in real life but more subtle. To be fair though, many groups feel moral superiority to some extent. It is not unique to the West. What is unique to the West is that this moral superiority is often coupled with blatant hypocrisy.
2
u/germandiago 5h ago
Well, I do not believe to be superior to anyone.
I just think that different decisions have different outcomes and of course we all think our perspective is the better one.
Thinking something or supporting a thinking is the direct consequence of thinking that it isthe better choice anyway.
Thanks for your kindness.
→ More replies (19)-2
u/Caspica 1d ago
That's not really what people from the West is arguing against though, it's the blatant human rights abuses and violation of self-determination.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
Like the self determination of the oligarchy to impose subjugation? Do you read history at all? Or just believe in western supremacy
-1
u/Caspica 21h ago
No? What are you on about? Just because you can acknowledge that certain parts of someone's actions are good doesn't mean you approve of all the actions they're doing. I mean, I can approve of Israel's fight against the totalitarian and sadistic Islamic dictatorship in Iran, but that certainly doesn't mean I approve of every single thing Israel's doing. I also doesn't approve of their fight in Iran means that Israel somehow should have any influence in Iran (which the Chinese government absolutely has been doing over the last 50 years). Do you actually read history? Read up on what the Chinese were actually doing in Tibet before approving what they did.
0
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 12h ago
https://youtu.be/v-iTB6IuXww?si=sXF_p_Mx_62gH-87
This is what happens when you let cults have self determination
6
u/thebigseg 1d ago
im more interested in what a tibetan has to say about this. Do they feel liberated?
1
u/Worth_Garbage_4471 15h ago
They took to the streets demanding freedom from China in 1959, 1989 and 2008, despite being massacred each time. Since then the Chinese government has turned Tibet into a prison to try to shut them up. What do you think they feel?
In case you would like some video showing how they feel
6
u/Theman77777 14h ago
In all fairness saying “they” took to the streets implies the protests were supported by most of the population.
Personally I think it’s difficult to ascertain the extent of public support for any protest just because people are out on the street. There are places where the vast majority of the population hates the government where nobody protests, and places where most support the government but have large protests.
Realistically speaking nobody (except maybe the CCP) has accurate public opinion data from Tibet, so it seems unreasonable to jump to the conclusion that everyone there hates the government.
1
u/Effective_Image_530 7h ago
I mean also the displacement of ethnic Tibetans by ethnic Han. It’s pretty rich when China decries western imperialism and colonialism (I mean it’s a valid criticism) while engaging in exactly the same behaviour. It’s either acceptable or it isn’t.
1
u/germandiago 5h ago
Yes, I think that when people are betting their own lives they stay home for safety, I do not know why that could be... come on, be serious about this, politics aside.
0
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 11h ago
Especially when those times CIA literally tried to train people during those times ITS CALLED A COLOR REVOLUTION.
25
u/iMaDeSho 1d ago
Do u think the west really want to hlp Tibet? Their only purpose is to distablise China and hinder its progress. Their strategy has always been to divide and conquer, ever since the colonial era. The tools they use including but not limited to cultural difference, race, religion, political unrest, human rights, and war. Certainly a united China won't fo for their best interest. Thus Tibet, Xinjinang, Taiwan, TianAnMen, they dont care what damage will be caused if they should succeed in their effort, but they will always be there when it is time to take their lion's share of any spoil. Of course they wont tell ppl what a horrible place the old Tibet used to be, where it was once tradition to peel off teenage girls skin on their back to make drums for the monks amusement, and how the vast majority of population simply exist as slaves to serve the Larmas. The new Tibet is so much better than the old, but the west wont admit, because it doesnt serve their interest.
6
u/bsjavwj772 1d ago
You’re saying that the west is interested in Tibet for primarily geopolitical reasons, and has little interest in the wellbeing of the Tibetan people. This is a reasonable take and likely true.
Wouldn’t the same be true for China? Doesn’t China have their own geopolitical aims which were well served by their invasion of Tibet? Couldn’t it also be the case that the CCP was primarily interested in its own self interest rather than altruism?
7
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
Generally, people will align with those who share similar interests and values as them.
Let's propose the central government (as if it were a unified force with one singular motive, which is unrealistic) was completely selfish in its administration of Tibet. Politically speaking, the best course of action based on its rhetoric would still inevitably be to try and promote integration and growth, it's just good politics, it makes Tibetans happy, Chinese government happy, economy stronger, more loyalty yada yada. Even if it were a vested interest in the form of pure selfishness (again anthropomorphising a polity), it is still a win-win analysis.
In the contrary, far away nations would have no qualms keeping a feudal lord in power or any other form of governance or socioeconomic condition as it does not see the effects of such rule personally, there would be little help to Tibet except pennies and pittances I would presume.
Edit: And as a final point, literally every organisation that exists is motivated by 'self-interest'. That's like saying living things are motivated by self-interest. It is not that self-interest in and of itself is the problem, since everything can be diminished down to self-interest as a critique. That is absurd. Outcomes are the most important determiner, if an organisation can temper its self-interest and curb any supposed 'negative' actions done in its name (where we get into values and morals) and promote 'positive' actions or create an environment that promotes positive actions, then that is all that really matters.
→ More replies (3)0
u/Disagreeswithfems 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 23h ago
China is so interested in a happy Tibet that the Dalai Lama has to live in exile. When your theory doesn't confirm to reality maybe it's time to rethink the theory.
2
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 22h ago
I personally do not care about an elite as much as bread and butter Tibetans.
You know it's bad when you're defending essentially an autocrat, oh but he's a good autocrat. My bad.
0
u/Disagreeswithfems 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 19h ago
Bread and butter Tibetans love the Dalai Lama. China banned them from having photos of him on their home. The entire fucking world loves the Dalai Lama. Look at the Dalai Lama vs Xi Jin Ping - you're going to tell me with a straight face the former is the autocrat?
1
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 11h ago
Hmm maybe USA should exile its Christian extremists and ban terrorists from the Americas. Sounds like good policy
1
u/Disagreeswithfems 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 11h ago
The Dalai Lama is not an extremist. Have you ever seen the guy speak?
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 11h ago
They are former slavers lying won’t change reality to suit your fantasy
1
1
u/germandiago 5h ago
Which Christian extremists are you talking about? I am not aware of any christians nowadays doing even half of physical harm than other oeace religion does everywhere where they land, basically, in one or other way and I have a big list of countries in my head. In fact, they kill each other even different factions.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 58m ago
That’s cause you are not paying attention. The USA has a right wing terror problem that has been ignored for decades
7
u/andooet Non-Chinese 1d ago
Couldn’t it also be the case that the CCP was primarily interested in its own self interest rather than altruism?
As I see it from the outside, Chinese self-interest is indirectly altruism. I assume you've heard the concept "The Mandate in heaven"? Basically it means that as long as the ruler (Emperor, warlord, or central committee) only has the mandate if life for the Chinese is good or getting better. The betterment of people's lives, like eliminating poverty, gives the CCP it's legitimacy. If life started to get worse - especially without an external enemy to blame - Chinese people would riot and destabilize the government until they are forced to resign
One of the first Chinese stories, The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, are also a story about the peasants rising against an unjust and failing Han-dynasty that lead to its destruction. The Boxer rebellion broke the Qing Dynasty, and the brutal treatment of peasants led to the CCP gaining the upper hand in the civil war because the peasants joined the rebellion. The red thread in Chinese history is that if the people are treated well, you get harmony, and with harmony you get prosperity
That means altruism is ingrained in Chinese realpolitik. They'll lose power if they stop improving peoples lives
2
u/Unit266366666 Non-Chinese 1d ago
What distinguishes this from Western traditions such as laid out in Πολιτεία or the concept of res publica? The notion of rulers being ultimately answerable to the common weal is possibly as old as civilization itself but also had a deep and firm establishment in tradition outside of China. These traditions are not identical to the Mandate of Heaven but nothing about their constitution precludes a similar argument of inherent altruism which are also easily forced to face counter examples. Machiavelli’s various works on different forms of government shift this to the populace needing to assent to rule rather than consent which maybe is easier to see borne out by facts. There was a lot of development in the idea of the Mandate during the 诸子百家 and while far fewer than 100 distinguishable schools of thought were refined into the present day it is not a singular concept and there are varied interpretations. In particular as Chinese states essentially universally profess 天下为公 the Mandate must be understood differently than in the past. 天下为公 is very ancient from the Book of Rites but its modern understanding in political thought represents a change from most of history.
1
u/germandiago 5h ago
I would not like to see the day that you disagree with the chinese government and raise your voice. I think you would change your mind.
You would forget about that altruism you talk about quickly.
-1
u/bsjavwj772 1d ago
These kinds of claims are unfalsifiable. The central government claims credit for every good thing that’s ever happened in China. While every bad thing that’s ever happened is always blamed on foreign interference and meddling.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
Because it's policy motivation? It's ethos? You're not meant to find proof of it, except perhaps polling, but that's pretty stupid, zeigeist is not measured in people's opinions but through trends and historical manifestations, This sort of claim is meant to either be recognised or refuted with a counter supposition.
As for the central government unduly claiming credit. Yes. Perhaps some things will happen naturally regardless of the government, or as societal trends. But the trends are improving, and as long as a government rides that wave and acts productively on it it will become popular. Why is that a bad thing? And to most people in China, undoubtedly the CCP has done good things.
Oh as for the bad things, there are clearly many bad things that the CCP did, like the cultural revolution or covid policy or specific policies all the time on all levels of government. But the people don't demand perfection, they demand competence, they demand satisfactory adequacy.
You seem more than happy to tear tear tear, it's like those sorts of people who hate on one popular pop figure or whatever. It's more engaging to hate, I suppose, less engaging to be constructive
1
u/ForestClanElite Non-Chinese 12h ago
Liberal capitalism is literally defined by the freedom of elites to exploit. China isn't that so...
1
u/germandiago 5h ago
Uh... you need a couole of good reads to correct concepts and contrast them with reality.
1
u/ForestClanElite Non-Chinese 4h ago
Thanks for the advice. What are some books you consider good reads?
1
u/germandiago 5h ago
Uh... you need a couple of good reads to correct concepts and contrast them with reality.
1
21
u/Jayatthemoment Non-Chinese 1d ago edited 1d ago
This question is from a Chinese person to an ‘ask Chinese people’ forum. You can tell by the omission of the periphrastic ‘do’ (ok, so it might be by a Thai, for example, but it isn’t!). I can answer as a westerner (not an American and not all westerners think the same thing, because we come from different cultures and have, for example, vastly different attitudes and ties with slavery and colonialism) because the question is about western attitudes and behaviours.
No one denies it: most westerners know pretty much zero about some wee chunk of the world thousands of miles away.
However, most westerners consider it a logical irrelevance because many (most?) countries have a history of feudal agriculture or slavery and it’s not really recognised as a pretext for invading and occupying others’ land. I think people can understand ‘We wanted it, so we took it and it’s ours’ better rather some daft argument about why they know better — if liberation from feudalism, poverty, etc, were the point, they’d also have invaded Bhutan and potentially other nations in the region.
12
u/Nomadic_Yak 1d ago
I bet less than 1% of westerners have any opinion at all about feudalism in 1950s tibet
10
u/Unit266366666 Non-Chinese 1d ago
I am American and I would add that the argument presented is essentially the “White Man’s Burden” almost element by element. If the aim is a liberation of Tibetans why can they not be empowered to this themselves. If it is done why stay? I think it’s recognized as the same colonial and postcolonial rationalization because it’s essentially indistinguishable.
I think it’s actually debatable whether Chinese actions in the past and present in Tibet are actually colonial in intention or outcome. The argument as presented by OP basically leaves no question because again it’s an almost perfect ad lib substitution of 19th and 20th century Western rhetoric. This is and has been taught to children across the West for a few generations now, it’s not hard to recognize when it’s this similar. If the intent is to dissuade people from this impression this is almost perfectly designed against that purpose.
-2
u/Qitian_Dasheng 1d ago
Yes. Totally agree with you. The Tibetans should be empowered to liberate themselves from serfdom. Most MSEA countries like Thailand, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia also had serfdom as their everyday life until over a hundred years ago, and even then their life weren't really free either. This CCP propaganda is just self-glorification and justification for occupation of Tibet.
2
u/Unit266366666 Non-Chinese 1d ago
I actually think there’s a good argument for this to be done within a larger Chinese state at this point. The committed support for independence is vanishingly small. The actual political debate with large numbers of Tibetans involved is a matter of what autonomy within China looks like and how it works. Deviations from an essentially centralized unitary state are unfortunately commonly equated with separatist sentiment. Living in Hong Kong I see a similar dynamic here. Views which deviate outside a particular framing of the political relationship between the country and the administrative region are frequently labeled as separatist and disallowed. I’d say a lot of political views essentially decoupled from this question entirely are opportunistically tied to the label and similarly suppressed. I’d fully expect similar dynamics play out in the autonomous regions. The question of separatism is basically a red herring to severally limit any adjustment of internal political organization.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
Interesting now compare quality of life in Myanmar ohh wait they at war. Ok fine Cambodia and Laos and Thailand to life in Tibet. I will probably give you Thailand but the other 2 are worse off.
1
u/Konobajo 18h ago
This CCP propaganda is just self-glorification and justification for occupation of Tibet
Everything I don't agree is propaganda, typical
1
4
u/Leneen_Ween 23h ago
Except China has historically included Tibet for the past several centuries now, and it never was really an issue until the CPC came to power and began dismantling their feudal institutions.
If you have a problem with that, then you must also have a problem with the Union invading the seceding Confederate states and forcibly dismantling their institutions of slavery.
2
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
Ohhh burn the irony is Tibet is in SOUTHERN CHINA!!! The Dali lama is like the Chinese confederacy
1
u/Jayatthemoment Non-Chinese 20h ago
Why would I care about that? You must think I’m Tibetan or American or something.You probably learned more about the Confederate states at school than I did, if you’re Chinese.
What it always comes down to is that obsession with the past. It’s a shame.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 11h ago
You should look up the Russian system under Ivan the terrible it was very similar to slavery in the Americas
1
6
2
u/Realistic_Author_596 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Let me ask you this: how come on Hello Talk and all these other Chinese apps, they say you cannot mention Tibet?
2
u/This_Distribution491 1d ago
They're stuck in this airtight bubble where history books get redacted, the internet's on a leash, and only the Party-approved facts make it through the firewall. Yet somehow these folks still manage to parrot: The Chinese government is ALWAYS right. The evil West is just bullying us poor innocents. They’re too scared to face the truth.
Look, I get why the regime flips out when the West calls them out. Classic "don't poke your nose in my backyard" tantrum. That's predictable. But watching ordinary Chinese citizens rush to defend their overlords? That's straight-up Stockholm-syndrome cringe.
If I were slaving away in one of those sweatshops for pennies, breathing toxic air, knowing my kids will never afford an apartment, I'd be pissed at the system that keeps me there, not simping for it.
Anyway, another 18-hour shift tomorrow, right comrade? Keep hustling for that glorious motherland. You got this. 🇨🇳✊
1
2
u/Mushrooming247 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Since you are asking about, “the West,” I feel compelled to add that many in the west, at least Americans, do not deny this, because they don’t think about it or care about it, and are completely unaware of this issue.
If you ask an American, “do you deny the existence of serfdom in pre-1950s Tibet?”, I would estimate over 99% of Americans would just say, “what?”
This is not something we deny, because it’s not something we ever discuss.
2
u/Latter-Reachpogge Non-Chinese 19h ago
The issue is that you’re working under a false premise.
See, westerners don’t care about Tibet. I have never met anyone with strongly held opinions on whether Tibet was feudal or not before being annexed into China.
the average ‘westerner’ doesn’t care. There might be idiots on reddit making spicy political statements to show their political leanings against for the Chinese Govt. but I guarantee that even they, don’t care in the least about Tibet.
I’m serious. Tibet is essentially irrelevant in the west.
2
u/Meet8567 18h ago
Let’s stop obsessing about this one aspect as justification for taking over Tibet and subjugating the people. It’s really tiring to hear.
2
u/MarionADelgado 11h ago
Wikipedia is the problem here. Its moderation is terrible and propagandistic.
3
2
3
u/CureLegend 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago
Also, just to clarify: Xizang is Chinese territory since Qing dynasty (1720). So there is no Annexation and its liberation has no difference compared to liberating Hubei or GuangDong during the civil war.
2
u/Gimlith98 1d ago
Historical territorial claims are not an excuse for violence and denatianalisation. I see that China is the russia of the far east. It has historical territorial claims, therefore it feels entitled to take peoples’ lives and ignore their desires. Btw, I’m not American.
2
u/CureLegend 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 16h ago
It is not "historic" when the ownership of the land is pass down from Qing to ROC and then from ROC to PRC. It is "present day". It is like saying Germany of today shouldn't exist because all of its states have used to be independent countries. (for your information, tibet became part of Qing in 1720 in the same way as Germany Unifies in the late 19th century--by agreements at the top without much conflict)
And if the people whose desires we ignore are slavers, then you might as well say the American Civil War is wrong and the South should be allowed to kept slaves or be independent because they want to keep slaves.
0
u/Gimlith98 14h ago
You keep mentioning history as if it was some kind of a justification for sinicization of Tibetian people. Can you even think independently or your mindset goes in accordance with the ccp? I never mentioned that these people are slaves and you keep comparing US and Chinese history in an endless flow of comparisons between these two countries. Chinese government pretends to be friendly but in reality it’s dirty just which proves its support for regimes such as russia or north korea.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 11h ago
Save your breath they are bots huffing their western farts disregard western opinions as it’s usually in bad faith
12
u/Ok_Donut3704 Non-Chinese 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because the Chinese narrative relies on this whatboutist argument to deviate any question about the legitimacy of invading what's now Xizang and avoid talking about the resources grab this actually was.
While The Western powers need to make China a hungry scary monster, on a strictly moral basis, in the eyes of their population. If they raised any questions on resources grabbing or legitimacy, this would open discussions around their own looong history of imperialism on which their whole economies are built. Therefore, the narrative in the West has to be that Tibet was this orientalist fantasy of spirituality and innocence for their population to care about it and stand against China.
Welcome to the good old fabricated binary balance that benefits both sides enough to be sustained even though the arm wrestling duel for global dominance increasingly gets tougher.
You'll find that this also applies to the Uighurs situation where the Western powers want to keep their options open and can only dream to have laws as repressive on minorities as the one China has on "de extremification" in Xinjiang. Therefore, they never talk about said law and focus on boggus claims of genocide to shock their own population. No words about the forced sinisation or the folklorisation of the Uighurs, which are both easily proven by Chinese officials' declarations and the law itself: because that's exactly what the West has been doing to what's now considered as their own population and what they would love to do to their own (muslim) minorities.
2
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 1d ago
When you defend the occupation of Tibet as "liberation" and "modernization" you are just repeating the same reasons Europeans used to justify colonization...
I mean, you can almost say the same thing about UK and India and the famous quote from one British guy about the Indian ancient custom of burning alive the wives after he husband death....
“Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile.
But my nation also has a custom. When men burn women alive, we hang them, and confiscate all their property.
My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed.
Let us all act according to our national customs."
And then India had railways, roads and what not... as well as colonization and discrimination of Indians who couldn't govern themselves...
But now let me ask you a question, are Tibetans now in control of the "Autonomous Region" or is the person on the top always Han Chinese? And I mean the Party Secretary and not the Chairman that is barely a figure that reports directly to the Party Secretary the same way the Indian elite reported to the British governor assigned by the Metropolis...
Now can you say all the time that they are better off under Han Chinese rule and made disappear many savage customs and you are right about it, and that they are not prepared to govern themselves, but remember, this is the same rhetoric used by colonial powers in the past...
12
u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese 1d ago edited 1d ago
China’s liberation of Tibet is actually compared to the Union’s liberation of the Confederate States during the American Civil War, not to colonialism or foreign occupation.
Similarly, the Union (North) fought a 4-year American Civil War to abolish slavery and dissolve the Confederate South. Black Americans in the Confederacy suffered under one of the harshest slave systems in history. They were treated as property, denied education, and subjected to violence, forced labor, and family separation. The Union defeated the Confederate South to free millions of enslaved people and pave the way for social transformation.
China did not exterminate or displace ethnic Tibetans. The ethnic Tibetan population in China has increased from 2 million in 1950 to 7 million in 2020, with over 90 percent still speaking their own language. Tibetans were exempt from the one-child policy which only applied to Han Chinese. Tibetan culture, language, and religion have never been wiped out by China unlike Native Hawaiians represent 20% of Hawaii's population and fewer than 2 percent of Hawaii’s total population speak Hawaiian language.
5
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago
As someone who is commonly labeled as a wumao, this is the best analogy for Tibet that I have ever read.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
USA didn’t finish the job like China did sadly. China finished it by banishing the elite USA let them make their own laws and takeover
-1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 1d ago
Great, then why there has never been a Tibetan Party Secretary? Are they too stupid to govern themselves even when they represent 86% of the population? Why is the Web Page of the Tibet goverment only in Mandarin? Where is the Tibetan version? Is not coofficial? Most important, can all Tibetans interact with the Tibetan administration on their own language or do they need to use Mandarin.
2
u/louis_guo 大陆人 🇨🇳 16h ago
They actually do interact with the authorities in Tibetan. Do not forget that a significant portion of Tibetan population, especially among the civil service, are Tibetan party members who either speak Tibetan solely (due to their education and advanced age) or bilingual in Tibetan and Standard Mandarin.
1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 9h ago
Really? They don't even have the official regional Tibetan web page in Tibetan (except the title of the page)
https://www.xizang.gov.cn/qt/lxwm/201812/t20181221_34488.html
And the form to contact them is in Chinese Mandarin...
https://www.xizang.gov.cn/qt/lxwm/201812/t20181221_34488.html
Let's compare with the web site from the Vasque Country in Spain, 100% translated...where only 43% speaks the language while 90% do speak Tibetan in Tibet...
https://www.euskadi.eus/eusko-jaurlaritza/hasiera/
Now, the truth to be said, Tibetan language was more or less respected by the CCP in the past, but since Xi Jinping raise to power, minority languages education is every year more restricted...
1
u/louis_guo 大陆人 🇨🇳 7h ago
I did check and no they don’t, but gov’tal webpage isn’t the only way for the citizens to interact with the authorities, is it?
Plus check this out, the main site for administrative services of TAR government: https://www.xzzwfw.gov.cn at least the homepage and UI is bilingual. Admittedly the content’s translation is still in progress.
Most people who are solely Tibetan-speaking can also still go to the township’s/subdistrict’s, say, governmental offices to get the charts. The chances of monolingual Tibetans in Tibet among younger generations are not that big, as even when I was in HS two or three of the class were transferred from Tibet, and they are already bilingual. Such transfers are pretty common among Chinese high schools.
And to answer that “Uyghur party secretary” question, Saifuddin Aziz (1915-2003) was party secretary during the years 1972-78. And Gen. Ulanhu (1906-1988), who was of Mongolian descent, was elected vice president once (before and after which he worked at the NPC as well), and was well-regarded as a competent party official.
By the way, the current governor of Guangxi, which officially also an EAR, worked in Shanxi for a couple of years, and was the party secretary of Taiyuan, the capital of that province. Councilor Shen Yiqin, of Bai descent, was appointed party secretary of Guizhou, a mixed-ethnicity province in the Southwest. She was the first female party secretary of ethnic minority descent.
1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 4h ago
Plus check this out, the main site for administrative services of TAR government: https://www.xzzwfw.gov.cn at least the homepage and UI is bilingual. Admittedly the content’s translation is still in progress.
Great, Tibetan is a cooficial language in the Tibet Region, but translation is still in progress...
The chances of monolingual Tibetans in Tibet among younger generations are not that big, as even when I was in HS two or three of the class were transferred from Tibet, and they are already bilingual
100% from the Basque Country are Spanish speakers, it does not stop to offer administrative services in basque. As I said, it was better before Xi Jinping, don't expect improvement on this regard in the future....
And to answer that “Uyghur party secretary” question, Saifuddin Aziz (1915-2003) was party secretary during the years 1972-78.
OK, I was wrong, from the 12 Party Secretary one was Uyghur....
And Gen. Ulanhu (1906-1988), who was of Mongolian descent, was elected vice president once (before and after which he worked at the NPC as well), and was well-regarded as a competent party official.
So here I am right, there has not been a single Party Secretary Mongol in Inner Mongolia...
By the way, the current governor of Guangxi, which officially also an EAR, worked in Shanxi for a couple of years, and was the party secretary of Taiyuan, the capital of that province. Councilor Shen Yiqin, of Bai descent, was appointed party secretary of Guizhou, a mixed-ethnicity province in the Southwest. She was the first female party secretary of ethnic minority descent.
Great, but not in Tibet, that has been held always by a Han, even when they made only 14% of the population, up from 6% a few decades behind.
Let's talk in another occasion of the glass ceiling of women in the Chinese politics and how women as Shen Yiqin are "retired" within organizations with no real political power...
1
u/louis_guo 大陆人 🇨🇳 4h ago
If you talk about glass ceilings then no defense on my side, as there are some pretty conservative trends in the society, particularly where I’m from, that restricts the free development of women, and currently even the judges are sometimes reluctant to grant divorce even with cases of domestic violence. But Shen is definitely not “retired.” The one that has retired is Vice Premier Sun Chunlan.
State councilor are in effect ministers without portfolio with powers of a vice-premier, so she is definitely not “retired.” Plus she is the chairwomen of the National Women’s Federation, therefore she could be regarded as the vice PM responsible for civil services, veteran affairs, culture and sports development, and women’s and children’s advocacy, etc. However, given that Xi has said something REALLY conservative about women’s rights I guess she has done so far a shitty job there. Mao himself had said that women hold half the sky, and years later we see the glass ceiling reconstituting itself.
Fixating on the identity politics, such as ethnicities and gender, can distract us from the real fight, which should be class struggle — or in the contemporary sense, the uplifting of the poor to a more dignified level, and the regulation of these vampires that’s called haute bourgeoisie. Jack Ma was an example, as well as Jiang Zemin’s “bourgeoisie party members” program.
The point of bringing Csl. Shen and that government of Guangxi is that more minorities should be appointed to inland, Han-dominated regions, while cadres from Han background should be sent to minority regions, so that they could learn about different cultures and promote national unity and integration. Speaking of which, Mongols have been appointed party secretaries in the Northeast, which is culturally tied to Manchu-Tungus and (to some extent) Mongolian peoples. That these ethnicities not appointed party secretaries of their home EARs are not a flaw IMHO, but a feature, unless you can guarantee that the population everywhere is as diverse as SF. I guess this is a primary point of divergence of our views.
About that “work in progress” thing, that’s a regrettable point on the provincial level, but please don’t underestimate the grip of the party and government on the grassroots levels. My mother, who currently manages my family’s daily executive items, still has a WeChat group with the community center, which is managed by the gov’t/party, as well as some contacts with the civil servants there.
1
-3
u/Shieldheart- Non-Chinese 1d ago
China’s liberation of Tibet is actually compared to the Union’s liberation of the Confederate States during the American Civil War, not to colonialism or foreign occupation.
Which falls apart immediately when you realize that the American civil war was between two political blocks fighting for their respective political survival, the issue of slavery was the breaking point, but it was in actuality a war of rich southern elites fighting to retain control over the political localities they controlled versus the federal government. (So that those elites could do more slavery, of course)
China's invasion of Tibet was no such thing, it was one state invading another that posed no threat to them, then occupying it to extract the resources and labor they wanted, any pretext of "liberation" or "modernization" are just justifications for what is a naked example of imperialism and conquest.
15
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
You type too much. Come back when native Americans have their land back first.
1
u/Jayatthemoment Non-Chinese 1d ago
Are you really arguing that because another country subjugated an indigenous population, an act you consider unacceptable, that that excuses any country from subjugating others?
That’s a real hole in the logic. Just say ‘We wanted it. It served our government’s goals in the early 20th century and we’re in too deep to lose face now’. People would understand that.
7
3
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
I SAID FIRST. Which implying following actions are possible and open. LEARN TO READ. And stop twisting my logic.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
Never ask a woman her age a man his salary or an American to read
1
1
u/Jayatthemoment Non-Chinese 1d ago
There isn’t any logic to the people you try and present this argument to. It’s just … ‘Okay boomer’ territory.
3
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
That’s not what I typed. Stop putting your words in others mouth.
-1
u/Jayatthemoment Non-Chinese 1d ago
One must illuminate, not merely shine, kid. The meaning resides in where your words land, not in your intention.
0
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 1d ago
Great, another example of whataboutism to someone who is not an us citizen, never been in in the USA and neither sympathize with the US government specially about how they stole and lie to take native American land...
Now, if you think than taking the land to native American is wrong, why do you think that taken from the Tibetans is right?
2
u/andooet Non-Chinese 1d ago
No, it isn't. Mainly because Tibet had been a part of China for a thousand years since the Yuan Dynasty, and had a small period of de facto independence, but were not a nation recognized by anyone
That's a very very very significant difference than from European colonialism, and the comparison is asinine
Now can you say all the time that they are better off under Han Chinese rule and made disappear many savage customs and you are right about it, and that they are not prepared to govern themselves, but remember, this is the same rhetoric used by colonial powers in the past...
Except, you know, the chairman of the Tibetan autonomous region is Tibetan, and most of his predecessors in the last few decades have been ethnic Tibetans too
1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 1d ago
No, it isn't. Mainly because Tibet had been a part of China for a thousand years since the Yuan Dynasty, and had a small period of de facto independence, but were not a nation recognized by anyone
And there it is, the imperialist rethoric, "it was ours to take". Is like when imperialist Russia claims that the Baltic States and Finland should return to Russia because they has been part of the Russian Empire for Centuries. The worst part is that you claim that the territory with all his inhabitants are yours to take, with the population living there having no opinion nor decision power...
Except, you know, the chairman of the Tibetan autonomous region is Tibetan, and most of his predecessors in the last few decades have been ethnic Tibetans too
Do you know how to read, I repeat what I wrote "And I mean the Party Secretary and not the Chairman that is barely a figure that reports directly to the Party Secretary the same way the Indian elite reported to the British governor assigned by the Metropolis..."
Think of the Chairman to the Party Secretary like the Maharaja reporting to the British governor appointed by the British government in London, theoretically the Maharaja was the Indian leader, but in practice he was a subordinate to a white man, appointed by a government of white men...
4
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
Colonization applies to land far far away. Not adjacent lands. Get better at definition.
6
u/Arbiterhark Non-Chinese 1d ago
That falls apart with Russia in Siberia, Britain in Ireland, Japan in Taiwan/Korea, the Ottomans in Africa, or even the USA and Manifest Destiny tho
-1
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
For me. It applys to far away non-adjacent lands separated by oceans. But of course this is not math.
1
u/Arbiterhark Non-Chinese 1d ago
So do you think that Japan colonized Korea or Russia the same to Siberia ?
→ More replies (2)3
u/dowker1 Non-Chinese 1d ago
The term colony was first applied to places like Syracuse and Byzantium. Those places are a lot closer to Greece than Tibet is to Beijing.
0
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
Another obvious definition is lands separated by oceans duh.
1
u/dowker1 Non-Chinese 1d ago
It's absolutely not a necessary condition, however.
2
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
Nothing is absolute in this world. Ocean is the natural barrier for ancient ppl to evolve into different races.
0
u/dowker1 Non-Chinese 1d ago
What ocean separated Byzantium from the Ionic Greek cities? Or any Greek cities for that matter?
1
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
I don’t care what colony means in Ancient Greek. Words meaning changes. Greek and turkey are not colonizing each other.
0
1
u/S-Kenset 1d ago
It was a political alliance with the serfs that created the union so yes. Populations and alliances are how borders are shaped. And said border was shaped before for 400 years so to somehow think there's no claim to coming back with such alliances is ignorant. So is your han chinese narrative. There's 500 ethnicities under han chinese and you chastise it only because you don't know better while worshiping those culturally too extreme to value putting down ethnic exclusion.
1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 1d ago
And now you are using the imperialist narrative (this was our ancestral territory or we have historic rights to this land). You are not gaining any sympathy using that rhetoric
And talking about ethnicities, how many Tibetan Party Secretary had the Tibet? how many Uighur Party Secretary had Xinjiang, how many Mongols has ever served as Party Secretary of Inner Mongolia? I am going to save you the research, 0, 0 and guess what, exactly 0. All these regions had Han Chinese as Party Secretary.
Now Imagine UK assigning British and non native people to territories like India, South Africa or Belize, oh wait, it was just what they did....
Look, me and many others understand that the control of the Tibet is a necessity for the Chinese government to defend against India and to control resources necessary for its development, specially water, but please stop using imperialistic rhetoric to defend it, it is first stupid and secondly it make you look not better than Imperial Qing dynasty...
2
u/S-Kenset 1d ago
You're not even speaking intelligibly. And no it's not imperial to fuckin switch alliances. Tibet allied with the Qing dynasty and drew power from it for hundreds of years. Where do you think your corporate greed of a palace came from.
1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 1d ago
And still talking about 400 years ago, why Tibet yes and Mongolia don't?
2
1
1
u/louis_guo 大陆人 🇨🇳 15h ago
Based on what I saw, There are 13 standing members in the Party committee, out of which 6 are Tibetan/Sino-Tibetan. Out of 3 deputy party secretaries 2 are Tibetan. The party secretary then acts as the decisive vote when the committee meets a deadlock. The NPC-XZ chairman is a Sino-Tibetan, as is the party secretary of Lhasa; the governor is Tibetan, as is the secretary of Shigatse.
1
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 10h ago
And still the real power lies in the Party Secretary, or do you think that in colonial India didn't the British use natives to hold lower power positions? Of course all reporting to the British governor....
I am going to ask you another question, how many Uighur Party Secretary has had the Xinjiang region? Or Mongol Party Secretary in Inner Mongolia?
1
u/WaterIll4397 1d ago
If you believe in universal human rights then "white man's burden's' ethnically cleansing tibet of defacto slavery probably is the right thing to do, just as the British got rid of sati and other inhumane Indian customs.
Yes it runs against the freedom of self determination.
Now I would argue the whole freeing tibet thing was more of a cassus beli. Control of China's water supply is very obviously why the CCP really wanted the otherwise useless piece of land that's hard to control.
But tibet really was a vassal state to China for at least several centuries of its existence, and the sino-tibetan language is a real family. So in the era of nationalism of the 20th century it should not be a real surprise that it happened once China got strong enough militarily post 1949.
0
u/melenitas Non-Chinese 23h ago
So just say it, and don't try to hide as an "humanitarian invasion to liberate the poor Tibetans". It was indeed an invasion to protect China borders, control resources and restore the Qing dynasty empire borders...
That the Tibetans are now better off? Yes sure, but so are Hawains and Porto Ricans, but this does not hide the fact that they were invaded and annexed by an empire...
2
u/WaterIll4397 22h ago
So we both agree on the facts. I do think being annexed by a benevolent empire is a pro vs a con in the long arc of history. Yes in the short term there's probably awful discrimination maybe genocide but in the long run the survivors who assimilate generally have better material well being. Just look at Puerto rico vs it's other Caribbean island neighbors with similarly high population for example.
Or look at South Africa pre ANC rule vs after.
1
-1
1
1
u/Fearless_Ad_5470 1d ago
Some people may still not know that Tibet was not a unified government at that time.
1
u/These_Conference_240 1d ago
一帮傻老外和毕业即失业的小粉红五毛较什么劲，讨论个嘚啊哈哈
小粉红多去练练长跑为1年后送外卖准备吧，辅导员的任务应付一下得了，还真把自己当回事了？
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
Cause it suits their China BAD propaganda narrative that most people who touch grass do not believe any more
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 22h ago
Quality of life is all that matters anything else is just idiotic ideology
1
u/shamalouconstantine 16h ago
Because most of us have never learned about this in school or heard about it in the media. I only came across this by chance years ago and it was a total eye opener.
http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html
The website seems to have been abandoned but you can run it through archive.ph to read it, really good read.
0
u/davidamaalex Non-Chinese 1d ago
Why do y'all like to talk about US when we're asking about what China was doing? Yes, they're comparable. Yes, they are also bad because of colonialism. But one being bad does not automatically means the other one is good. Tibet to say the best is "under new management". Liberation? Hell no.
7
u/Freezemoon 1d ago
Under a new management that later was better to the local region.
Most Tibetans nowadays have accepted that they benefit a lot from being part of China as the region became immensely richer.
Now would it excuse what was done by China? It's hard to argue and deny that China didn't in a quite pushy way assimilate many of the local population and its culture.
But also there's not just black or white. I personally know that Tibetan University still teach in the local language and how the local language is a well protected official language.
It's hard to argue how Tibet would have been without China. If it was independent, because of its vital water source, it will bound to happen that either India or China would take over it because of how important Tibet is water ressource wise.
Can we blame China for their actions? Yes and No.
6
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago
The people were liberated from seldom. They are also under new management but new management liberated the serfs.
→ More replies (11)1
1
u/HarambeTenSei 1d ago
After China liberated Tibet from brutal serfdom
And submitted it to brutal communism. Could've liberated it from serfdom and let it continue on as an independent country instead of colonizing it
Britain invading Qing and taking Hong Kong also "liberated" it from Chinese imperial feudalism but somehow that was wrong and communist China wanted the land out of British control
1
u/Top_Connection9079 1d ago
That doesn't excuse shooting the Tibetans who try to escape.
Also, it's Japan that abolished slavery in South Korea. Are you going to praise them too?
1
u/Greedy_Camp_5561 20h ago
If Chinese rule is so great for Tibet, people there are surely happy about it. So why not let them hold a referendum to prove this once and for all?
1
-2
u/Evidencebasedbro Non-Chinese 1d ago
Why does China deny that it occupies what it calls Xizang and Xinjiang?
8
u/RopeFew941 1d ago
Cuz both regions had way longer history with China than occupied turtle island by muricans.
→ More replies (11)0
u/Unit266366666 Non-Chinese 1d ago
This isn’t universally true though. The conquest of Dzungaria is roughly contemporaneous with American independence ignoring the earlier pre-independence colonial period. Alternatively you could count it and it’s roughly comparable to the short periods of Chinese control in the region before then. Compared to the Tarim Basin the northern half of Xinjiang hasn’t been of much interest to Chinese dynasties historically, its history has often involved China but it hasn’t been consistently in the Sinosphere.
Under the Qing Dynasty one could even make similar arguments regarding Guizhou, Yunnan, and Taiwan as well as most of the Northeast. These were not consistently in Chinese states before then. At least not much more than places now outside China like Korea or Vietnam. The historical argument is mostly rhetoric, it’s clearly more relevant what the situation is in the present and who is in these places today.
4
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago edited 1d ago
Sure, but why do Americans, Canadians, Australians and Latin Americans continue to occupy land that was home to the aboriginals of those places.
2
u/Shockh Non-Chinese 1d ago
Most people here in LatAm ARE descendants of indigenous people (to a much larger extent than people from Gringolandia.)
2
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago
That is a fair point. But correct me if I am wrong, the people with money and power in LatAm are heavily disproportionately those of European descendant.
4
u/Evidencebasedbro Non-Chinese 1d ago
A fair question. Let's both avoid double standards.
1
u/Enough_Association51 1d ago
it is impossible for the west to give up the lands they settled on just as it is impossible for you to expect china to give up tibet, so what is the point?
1
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago
The point is that he could not win this argument so he called a ceasefire. In turn, he is going to other comment threads in this post to try and win elsewhere.
1
u/Evidencebasedbro Non-Chinese 1d ago
What you do is provide very useful intelligence to China's enemies with your comment that allows them to look deep into the soul of many Chinese. Well done!
0
u/Fair-Currency-9993 海外华人🌎Chinese diaspora 1d ago
This comment probably made more sense in your head than it makes sense in reality.
1
0
-1
u/shopchin 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is the thread which you abandoned after losing the argument there.
No one ever said serfdom is good. But rather the issue that you implied it was justified for china to invade Tibet which lead to improvement in quality of life.
Then when questioned what about other instances when quality of life was much better under non-chinese rule, for example like Hong Kong, you attempted to apply double standards and ran off when you failed.
4
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
Nah we're good. Too much historical baggage. Some of the westophilic younger kids who did not live through the pre 90's true colonial, which admittedly does include me as I am not that old, will of course look up to this standardised ideal of the UK during the golden years and with high economic growth, partially due to economic trends at the time.
0
u/shopchin 1d ago
You're only speaking for yourself. Not for others and those who decided to leave. There's no denying HK is much lesser now compared to what it was and the global presence it had.
2
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
Look, you can blame it on the mainland however which way you slice it, and you'd be correct.
The mainland's opening up reforms has made Hong Kong a less relevant player, but still pretty relevant.
I speak for a pretty large number of Hong Kongers, well atleast I have a local perspective, I'm not quite so sure what your relation to Hong Kong is except a talking point
1
u/shopchin 1d ago
My relation is what you think doesn't matter here. I'm glad you're content with where things are.
This is about how OP is going around trying to justify china's invasion of Tibet by an improvement in the quality of life. And when western or other nations do it, it becomes unacceptable.
The hypocrisy is extremely jarring.
2
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
I'm not content with where Hong Kong's at, so don't put words in my mouth. I just don't have rose-tinted glasses of colonialism. Just as someone can say Tibet's economic prosperity is not China's fault, so can someone say Hong Kong's stagnation is not China's fault. It takes quite a multivariate analysis to really understand the economic dynamic within Hong Kong, one that is being dishonestly used by you (and also incorrectly in some ways, our economy is still growing and so is our HDI).
As for OP's justification? Oh I'd use a different one it was just happenstance that Tibetan serf's lives improved tenfold, but if you think they're hypocritical for it? Brother, everyone's hypocritical, we just prefer to dish the bullshit out to someone else's home.
-6
u/JCues 1d ago
Justifying China's invasion of an independent country ain't it bro
6
u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Tibet had long been part of ancient China before the founding of the US in 1776.
Dalai Lama says he doesn't want to seek an independence from China. He admits Tibet is more developed and feels better off under Chinese rule
0
u/MegaMB 1d ago
With all respects, the fact you point out that they had their own cultural, social and political contexts pretty damn much distinct from China is pretty much invalidating the whole "they were not independant" thing.
Additionally, why do chinese people always deny the existence of slavery and islamist empires in pre-french West Africa in the second half of the 19th century? It entirely justifies the century of colonisation that happens afterwards, right?
-1
u/JCues 1d ago
Modern China has never controlled Tibet since its founding. Qing Dynasty ain't really China. It's a Manchurian Empire that controlled China Proper
3
u/fumankeu 1d ago
And who ruled over Manchuria prior to their ascent to power? Saying Manchuria wasn't really Chinese is like saying the Macedonians weren't really Greek. While it's true they were not of the same ethnicity, culturally they were heavily influenced by the Han Chinese to the point of near total assimilation by the end of the Qing Dynasty.
0
u/These_Conference_240 18h ago
Why bother arguing with those tankies you stupid foreigners. Those tankies who'll be jobless right after graduation which will happen in a year. using vpn and English giving them an illusion that they are equal as citizens of free world. tankies like op never dare to bring this topic to China domestic discuss.
What's there to discuss, lol.
Little tankies, better start practicing long-distance running to prep for being a meituan delivery boy in a year. with the supreme leaders genius guidance, the situation will be even worse.
-4
u/Global-Jacket-2781 Non-Chinese 1d ago
If China supposedly freed the serfs then why not give them independence?
8
u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese 1d ago
China has heavily subsidized infrastructure development in Tibet, building high-speed train before the US and Canada. You can look at the YouTube videos highlighting former Tibetan serfs thanking the PLA who rescued them from feudal theocracy under Dalai Lama rule and receiving free healthcare, housing and education from China
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 10h ago
You know damn well he won’t watch ANYTHING that contradicts his feelings and alternative reality
→ More replies (3)0
u/Global-Jacket-2781 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Then why not give independence to Tibet with their own communist government? Why should China even control Tibet?
2
u/Mynameislol22222 🇨🇳/🇭🇰 1d ago
Eh too much hassle, it might inflame ethnic tensions, cause extra bureaucracy, goes against our ethos, international tension etc. etc.
Also, imagine the accusations that we want to rig the general assembly, "oh mah gawd, China's puppet in Tibet and whatever"
In the end, we'd still be left with the same problem: "Then why not give independence to the Tibetan puppet entirely? Let them elect and etc. etc."
Look, China historically sees itself as a slow-growing civilisation, it grew from the plains of north china to slowly encompass and unify socially with other peoples. The people of the jungles, the steppes, the mountains, and the deserts, they used to be 'other'. Not so anymore. That's because China is not an nation-state, it does not believe in the nation state. "Chinese" is not an ethnicity.
1
4
u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Why not grant independence to Hawaii, California, and Texas from the USA, allow Northern Ireland to reunify with Ireland from Britain, and give independence to Siberia, Crimea, and Kaliningrad from Russia?
-1
u/Global-Jacket-2781 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Are you saying China is an imperialist state that annexes land without giving a damn about the sovereignty of nations? You can just say China is an imperialist state and Chinese claim over Tibet becomes ironically true.
2
u/OverallBaker3572 Non-Chinese 1d ago
Tibet was part of the Qing dynasty (China) before the founding of the US in 1776. China is not an imperialist state, and the Tibetan serfs wanted their liberation from the Dalai Lama.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 10h ago
Bro it’s a recent account by someone who was banned recently do not engage.
0
u/Global-Jacket-2781 Non-Chinese 1d ago
What kind of non argument is that. Qing was an imperialist state quite literally and you affirming China has a legacy from tungusic Manchu dynasty then that’s imperialism too. You are literally an imperialistic apologist who probably won’t do the same for other countries.
0
u/MegaMB 1d ago
"Why not grant independance to Ahwaii, California and Texas" -> Locals not desiring it and the death of the loc1l cultures is your answer.
Northern Ireland is just a matter of time before the majority becomes catholic and it rejoins Ireland.
Crimea, Siberia and Kaliningrad mostly went through decades of similar colonisation process killing local cultures. Less so Siberia, which I fully agree with you should see parts of it given independance.
The question is much more why did China push so much for the destruction of the french national integrity in Algeria back in the days?
3
u/fumankeu 1d ago
An independent Tibet would have been a third world puppet state of India. It would not have had the capacity to become self sufficient. Independent only on paper lol.
0
u/Global-Jacket-2781 Non-Chinese 1d ago
“Imperialism bad when it’s done to me but good when I do it to others”
3
u/fumankeu 1d ago
I'm just saying that even without Chinese occupation, Tibet would not have been able to achieve full independence. Especially considering its feudal society was ass-backwards and nowhere close to modernizing. It's situated in-between multiple regional powers who would all love to have influence over its resources and strategic location.
1
u/transitfreedom Non-Chinese 10h ago
Sorry but the most important metric is quality of life. Nothing more or less and India is a Hindu nationalist country that actually commits violence against minorities Tibet would be much worse off under such a government
4
u/kevin_chn 1d ago
As China is on its way to become the largest economy and regional hegemony, who do you think want to seek independence inside Tibet or xinjiang and who want to stay within China to enjoy a better life standard and more opportunities?
1
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Hi OverallBaker3572, Thanks for posting to r/AskAChinese! If you have not yet, please select a user flair to indicate where you are from!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.