Why is china a communist country claiming non-chinese territory as its own because it was once conquered by their imperialist predecessor?
the entire world was given to china initially they just let everyone else have some parts of it because they are generous
It's always "Free Tibet" until it becomes time to actually free Tibetan lands from Indian occupation.
Because the communist party of tibet, the de facto government of tibet, merged with the communist party of china, the de facto government of china
china egoists confirmed.
>>2586828FACT YOU ARE CHINESE
CHINESE HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE BUT THEIR CHAINS
i wonder if names people gave themselves were just their word for describing humans. antropologist and/or linguist please edumacate on this matter
>>2586833Dengoids be like "you dare contradict the 100 million members of the CPC!!" when most of those guys think not so dissimilarly from this.
imperialism is good when we socialist do it unironically
>muh irredentism
Progressive china will cultivate and use those lands better, cope.
I unironicaly think imperialism is based if a socialist country is doing it.
>>2586833Xi needs to strengthen the firewall
>>2586836>>2586838by definition if a country is imperialist its a capitalist country
>>2586840Lenin was wrong, imperialism is the first stage of capitalism and it is about primitive accumulation.
Taiwan only stopped claiming Mongolia as its own territory a couple of years ago.
>>2593445
Was it a bad thing for the USSR to invade Afghanistan?
>>2594458It came at the request of its legitimate government.
>>2586827Marx and Engels supported Manifest Destiny and the British conquest of India. Or at least they thought it was better than the alternatives. I heard someone claim they cooled off on that opinion alter in their lives but I never saw a source for that.
Tibet is more nuanced than either side lets on.
There's an annoying tendancy for MLs and pro-China people to either get angry that Tibet is even mentioned at all (often rightly assuming it's being used to attack China or Socialism more broadly), and likewise for libertarian left, dem soc, and anti-China people to annoyingly ignore how Tibetan society operated before it was annexed (because they have never investigated the history and bought into neoliberal anti-leftist propaganda).
I fear any thread like this will just turn into mud flinging between the two sides.
On the one hand, Tibet prior to Chinese invasion was a literal theocracy with a system of abusive religious slavery where young boys served as personal slaves for lamas, and where illiterate starving serfs who made up the majority population were made to fork over their food and produce to monastics while prostrating themselves and thanking the monks for the privilege.
It was not some exotic forgotten mountain paradise of peace and harmony like Hollywood movies suggest.
In my personal opinion, obviously that theocratic serf/slave economy needed to be ended for the benefit of Tibetans, by outside / Chinese intervention if necessary. Maybe others here disagree. Maybe they would've modernised on their own. We can't know because that's not what happened.
On the other hand, China has spent centuries upon centuries trying to conquer the Tibetan people. China has for literal ages had imperialist ambitions over Tibet and is currently undertaking attempts to foster Han colonisation of the region.
The Communist Party actively prohibits usage of Tibetan language and it is explicitly banned in most schools just as how the British once banned Irish/Gaelic in school during the age of empire.
China also literally has schemes that pay Han people to move to Tibet, and almost all Tibetan politicians are first or second generation Han settlers. The current CPC head for Tibet is from fucking Shandong.
However, those who claim China wants to eradicate Tibetan culture entirely go a little too far. Tibetan culture is very profitable and China won't kill it entirely.
Rather, they want to control it and sell a sanitised version of it to Han tourists and to would be Han colonisers on the streets of Lhasa.
Tibetan language on a Shigatse restaurant logo? Fine. Want to speak Tibetan when you sell trinkets on the side of the road? Whatever. Want to speak Tibetan where your Han boss can hear it? That's unacceptable.
As far as I'm concerned that's still cultural erasure.
Colonisation is of course always bad whether it's Israel doing it, White people doing it, Asian people doing it.
And if you read domestic Chinese media, they don't hide what the goal is.
Tibet is shown as an exotic empty wild west that needs civilising by the Han. It's like the 1800s and they're trying to settle the Great Plains.
I'd say if you don't believe me then go for yourself but chances are you'll be denied entry unless you have a Chinese mainland passport.
China is as communist as the US.
>>2594700So authentically communist ?
>>2594696> The Communist Party actively prohibits usage of Tibetan language and it is explicitly banned in most schools just as how the British once banned Irish/Gaelic in school during the age of empire.This is a dumb thing to say anon.
https://youtu.be/pSWaFsLgEpU?si=cCfea5_Fca3kh50b >>2594458The USSR never claimed that Afghanistan was an integral part of the USSR because some bumfuck Tsardom in the past held Afghanistan for a few decades
>>2586835picrel is largely correct tho
muslims give zero shits about struggles which do not even MUH UMMAH uWu
it is absolutely correct for China to look at its interests even when a genocide is being committed on the Palestinians
Why go out of your way to help the religious morons (like the USSR) for them to spit on you once they are doing well?
>>2594792read my post
read your picrel
read the original picrel
repeat until you understand, moronoid
>>2594798>read my postI wouldn't have responded if I didn't
>read your picrel I wouldn't have posted it if I didn't
>read the original picrelI did
>repeat until you understand, moronoidI am asking which historical incident you are referring to here:
<Why go out of your way to help the religious morons (like the USSR) for them to spit on you once they are doing well? >>2594773yes,but people here want to "be on the right side of history" so admitting that even in the best scenario of palestinian liberation they would end up a muslim bourgeois republic (as opposed to the jewish bourgeois republic) is basically treated as zionism.
(if they do the same things that african countries "liberated" from France do,they would also just go into the arms of the USA too)
>>2594696>China has for literal ages had imperialist ambitions over Tibet and is currently undertaking attempts to foster Han colonisation of the regionLmfao, how do you colonize in your own country? Chinese people move around in their own country, most chinese are Han, therefor the most chinese moving in china are going to be Han people, that has nothing to do with colonialism.
>The Communist Party actively prohibits usage of Tibetan language and it is explicitly banned in most schools just as how the British once banned Irish/Gaelic in school during the age of empire.lol, this is just blatantly not true
>and almost all Tibetan politicians are first or second generation Han settlers. The current CPC head for Tibet is from fucking ShandongParty officials, especially at the higher level move around and govern various provinces that they are not from. Xi was secretary of like 3 different provinces before he became part of the standing committee. The the Chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region and the Chairman of the regional People's Congress, are by law ethnic Tibetans
>And if you read domestic Chinese media, they don't hide what the goal is.Please provide domestic Chinese sources that claim they want to do Han colonialism in Tibet or that it is prohibited to speak Tibetan in school
>>2594696Tibet had already been incorporated into China under the Qing dynasty and broke apart during the 1911 revolution in part to preserve its feudal/slave system. It was basically the CSA of Asia and Chinese annexation was no more "imperialism" than the US annexing the Confederacy.
>>2594696if we wanted to read this sort of gibberish we could just go onto reddit and have state dept mandated opinions directly shot into our veins
China is 100% capitalist, they don't even have free universal healthcare or pensions. Their culture is based on extreme competition, Since childhood, they attend countless private classes and study all day long with the sole aim of getting a good job and crushing others. They are a culture obsessed with material things, they literally worship money (they have gods of money), they give each other money on important occasions, and they have countless rituals and prayers to ensure that business goes well.
If they beat the United States, it is because they are better at capitalism than the United States.
>>2594696>On the one hand, Tibet prior to Chinese invasion was a literal theocracy with a system of abusive religious slavery where young boys served as personal slaves for lamasNever understood why this classic 19th century excuse for European conquest is always trotted out for China. The British would claim that parts of India were poorly led by their elites and they were bringing civilization to oppressed people
>>2595048>It was basically the CSA of Asia and Chinese annexation was no more "imperialism" than the US annexing the ConfederacyNot really because Tibet had a very long history of not being ruled by China. It's more like Austria annexing Bosnia because Turkish irregulars had been oppressing Christians - and lest we forget, kidnapping their children
>>2594822read again, try again
>>2595781>The British would claim that parts of India were poorly led by their elitesThey were right and it still is.
>they were bringing civilization to oppressed peopleThe British didn't really care about that and just wanted resources but China genuinely has brought civilization to Tibet so it's not equivalent at all.
>>2594696>On the other hand, China has spent centuries upon centuries trying to conquer the Tibetan people. China has for literal ages had imperialist ambitions over TibetMing never invaded Tibet, they only inherited military posts and the vassalage of Tibet from Yuan, as the Mongols were the ones who actually invaded Tibet. Qing invaded in the 18th century to expel the Dzungar Khanate which had occupied Tibet and reestablish Tibet as a protectorate.
>and is currently undertaking attempts to foster Han colonisation of the region.Han colonization isn't even feasible, non-Tibetans have severe health problems from the thin air at the altitudes they live at, they can't live there without taking multiple decades off their lifespan.
https://www.princeton.edu/news/2013/07/01/altitude-sickness-may-hinder-ethnic-integration-worlds-highest-placesAnd if you look at the attached map you can see there has been no significant Han incursion into Tibet.
>The Communist Party actively prohibits usage of Tibetan language and it is explicitly banned in most schools just as how the British once banned Irish/Gaelic in school during the age of empire.Tibetan is not banned in schools, it is taught as a course. Mandarin, as the universal language in the PRC, is the primary language of instruction in schools, because without being fluent in Mandarin, Tibetans would be disadvantaged. Bilingual education is not erasure, nothing prohibits them from speaking Tibetan in conversation outside of class. Tibetan script is present on government signs in Tibet and it appears on RMB banknotes. Tibetan is an official language of the PRC.
>Tibet is shown as an exotic empty wild west that needs civilising by the Han. It's like the 1800s and they're trying to settle the Great Plains.Where are they accusing Tibetans of being savages who attack Han settlements(hasn't happened since Buddhism took hold), painting them as scalpers or cannibals, and killing 90% of them?
>I'd say if you don't believe me then go for yourself but chances are you'll be denied entry unless you have a Chinese mainland passport.Look up any random travel vlogger on YouTube trekking through Tibet.
>>2596011I will also note that as ethnic minorities living in a less-developed mostly-rural area, Tibetans receive tax reductions, extra points in college applications, and a large amount of government investment. Due to the amount of subsidy they get, they are actually a net negative for the central government in terms of tax.
https://newyork.china-consulate.gov.cn/eng/xbwz/zt/xzwt/200903/t20090331_5430020.htm <This means that for every 100 yuan that the region spent in its economic and social development, over 90 yuan came from the central government, the report said. >>2595781>Never understood why this classic 19th century excuse for European conquest is always trotted out for China. The British would claim that parts of India were poorly led by their elites and they were bringing civilization to oppressed peopleAnd then the British proceeded to starve 30 million people by extracting too much food and not raise living conditions at all…
Nobody cared that the ussr annexed most of the former Russian Empire during the Civil War, it would have been retarded to just accept the creation of "independent" burgeoise states that were backed by the central powers and then by the entente.
>>2595859ok so you can't actually explain what historical incident you're referring to
>>2586827Has China ever apologised to Vietnam for supporting Pol Pot?
>>2596025I'll go ahead and say that British conquest of India was bad to begin with and not just because of the Bengal famine. It wasn't good even if all the British did was build railways
>>2596201Can't say that nobody cared, one of the reasons the Soviet Union dissolved was because of nationalist resentment at the peripheries
>>2596598I would say if people came in just to build railways for you that'd be pretty chill tbh
>>2596602welp, I guess British imperalism was good everywhere that didn't have massive famines. Hell, the British fought the slave trade so I guess the British should have stayed in West Africa forever
>>2596602>>2596598one mistaken belief that people have, even leftists, is that the Brits just 'built railways' in India. India was not a part of Britain, the way that Manchester was/is. India had its own government and administration (under British control ofc) but still distinct from 'home' British government and administration. The Indian government had to pay for the railway, payment performed to the 'home' British industry of course. And the Indian government had to extract that money from the labour of the local Indians. And since it was British controlled, the supplier and benefactor of that building contract HAD to be from England. I read somewhere that India could get cheaper steel from Germany, but that was out of question of course.
So
1. India had to pay for it.
2. India received no special subsidies or discount for it by 'virtue' of being a colony. On the contrary, they had to accept shittier deals to please the British.
3. The planning of the railway system was such as to benefit British imperialism, not the local demands and conditions of India and Indians.
The more I read about how British Imperialism *actually worked* in India (and not just big bad 'Britisher' came and stole like most Indians themselves limit themselves to), the more I see how accusing the Soviet Union of 'colonialism' in the 15 Soviet Republics and the Warsaw Pact countries is absolutely ridiculous. The Soviet Union would always pay the 'fair market price', and sometimes even pay higher in order to help the comrades.
Glory to the Soviet Union
Death to the Anglo-Saxons
>>2596610You said if that's all they did anon lol, if it was
literally just building railways then that'd be chill with me. Like some big non profit just going around the globe building non profits for people
>>2596612Thank you for this great and informative response to my dumb joke anon
>>2596622Railways*
Fuck me
>>2596601I really like this meme.
>>2596647you can have it friend
>>2596690point out and correct the mistakes, don't just be a smartass about it
Unique IPs: 44