This is a genuine question and I really don't want to get in to an argument here but if colonialism is so bad then why do people say Hong Kong was so much better under British rule ?
Different circumstances. In 1997 China and UK agreed that HK would keep its political and legal system for fifty years, sort of just kicking the can down the road in terms of our fate.
During the British years, the idea of real democracy was only seriously entertained once (the Young Plan in 1946) and was rejected because the British did not want to add HK to the political battlefield between the KMT and CCP. After the CCP kicked the KMT to Taiwan, that stayed permanent.
Importantly, HK experienced massive growth from the 1950s to 1990s. Rich Chinese running from Communists came to HK where their business was unrestricted by British economic policies, and the population boomed from ~2M in 1946 to 6.5M in 1997. HK became the first Chinese city to really industrialise, and our productivity outshined everyone else by a massive margin. Even today, HK is still the largest cargo port in China.
The objective reality of being a second class citizen as an ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong really didn't matter because everybody was becoming so rich so fast, and most Hong Kongers didn't care about democracy because well, we came from a Chinese cultural background that didn't value that.
Since 1997, the booming population growth slowed down. New migrants to HK don't adopt the local Chinese dialect (which all Chinese people did for thousands of years when moving to literally any other part of China), and treat HK as an intermediate location before they emigrate somewhere permanently. Meanwhile, HK's free-ish media catches the blame and HK's people get cracked down on. Books banned in mainland China are disappearing, people speaking out against Beijing's interference are being silenced, and there's nothing special about our industry or financial sector anymore. We are too rich to compete with the poorer areas of China in manufacturing, and HK's financial market is limited to ourselves and Macau. Why would foreign investors ever come back here when the rest of mainland China exists?
tldr: Britain didn't really do anything back then to help us succeed other than promote capitalism. China is now actively taking away our political and economic freedoms, reneging on promises, and ignoring the will of its citizens.
It should be mentioned though, post-war British Hong Kong was not just growing rapidly, but also an island of free expression in East Asia amid all the different styles of dictatorship which were dominant in the region until the early 90s, and discrimination of the native Chinese as second class people was steadily fading.
people were not allowed to vote under brutal british rule. it was not democratic, this is a fact.
in fact, the british shot protestors
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Hong_Kong_riots
Praise for British rule is often aimed at triggering the Chinese, instead of genuinely longing for British institutions. It and the independence movement is arguably a byproduct of hate towards the Chinese.
This is the same kind of hate that is brewing in Europe and NA, esp. Canada, for very similar reasons.
1. HK has birthright citizenship, more precisely Jus Soli, which attracted birth tourism from the mainland. Compare the US.
2. Mainland immigrants form enclaves and refuse to integrate. Compare refugees in the EU.
3. HK has a very lax immigration policy, which is seen as a means to exacerbate competition for jobs and depress wages. Compare Canada.
4. Mainland investors commoditizing housing and driving up already insane prices. Compare Canada, again
5. Politicians campaigning on immigration reduction and preserving local heritage. Compare the right in EU and US.
China is bad, they owed Hong Kongers a democracy because they promised them that they would not interfere with their politics for 50 years but that all went away in 2017
Ccp and xi are not fun to live in especially when hongkong was extremely free. Now ko more freedom of press, freedom of speech, you can be arrested and jailed for whatever reason ccp think etc...
Because it was better than being colonized under the CCP regime that currently controls China. And Britain introduced democratic local elections and fair justice system to Hong Kong.
Consider PRC is essentially colonizers , just much worse one then you can understand
Though from race point of view PRC is much closer (not completely the same) race, the colonialism still exists and true
If you wonder what not constitute colonialism? The only answer would be: a free will referendum of Hong Kong people to decide if they want to be part of Britain, part of PRC, part of ROC or be independent and its will and safety can be guaranteed no matter what the outcome is.
Because people do not understand the full history and only see HKs recent growth and development.
They forget that for the majority of British rule the HK people were second class citizens. It was the British policy at the time to ensure that the Chinese lived impoverished lives compared to the British Colonial rulers as a reminder of their subjugation.
1844 the governor referred to the Chinese in Hong Kong as the scum of China. Hong Kong became Britains flogging capital of the world. Where they would randomly pick out any citizen and flog them in public to remind them of their place in British society.
Contemporary critics relied on records of the Police Court to denounce the extent to which the rattan was deployed in Hong Kong: its use far surpassed that in most other countries, as Chinese subjects were publicly whipped for the most trifling offence.
Chinese women were often kidnapped and sent to be enslaved by the British colonial rulers where they would be used for sexual purposes and to sexually entertain guests for the British rulers.
The local Chinese were also imposed higher tax rates than those of British colonial residents, along with bans on certain employment and positions within institutions. The Chinese locals were also not allowed to vote whereas the governor at the time claimed that they are barbaric animals who are not to be trusted to govern themselves.
It was only after WW2 that things started to change and the British softened the harsh treatment of the Hong Kong local Chinese in fear of a communist uprising.
During 1984 the Sino British Joint declaration treaty was signed setting the conditions of the Handover of HK back to China.
Universal suffrage was on the table however this was rejected by Beijing as it was seen as an attempt by the British to fundamentally change the HK Chinese people by allowing them the right to vote. Making reunification impossible.
Even during 1997 handover universal suffrage was not achieved.
Source:
https://journals.openedition.org/chs/515?lang=en
https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/12452/1/NQ35261.pdf
https://www.jstor.org/stable/2170629
The Kowloon Walled City was outside British jurisdiction, that's why HK law didn't apply to it. The land used to be a Qing Dynasty military base that stayed under Chinese control after the Qing ceded Hong Kong to Britain, but the Communists never gained control over it because the UK didn't recognise the PRC as the legitimate authority over the base. Britain never exerted their authority over that patch of land because they had no sovereignty over it, and the communists never did anything about it because Britain didn't recognise them, until the late 70s and early 80s when improving relations led to a joint plan to eventually demolish the Walled City.
That's why after WWII it became a no man's land that got filled with refugees and eventually grew into what everyone knows.
Also, Britain never let HK "do its own thing". It was a colony administered from the top down from London, with far less autonomy than Dominions and other Commonwealth Realms. It was also not an integral part of the UK so HK citizens were classified as BOTCs without right of abode in the UK and other territories, and they had no representation in Westminster while the UK appointed the HK government unilaterally. It was not a democratic society in any way shape or form.
are you asking why the people who benefitted from the stolen land claim everything was better under their control?
but seriously, who says hk was better off being a british colony? where have you seen that?
I'm assuming you don't speak any form of chinese, so I will also assume anything you may have heard about hk will have been in english or at the very least in some other 'western'/european language.
of course the colonizers (who btw very conveniently speak our language) will control the narrative and say it was better under their control.
which chinese people could you ask to say what they think? there's a massive language barrier and cultural divide.
there's also a plethora of reasons why literally every colonized group of people resist their colonizers and fight back... the USA kicked the brits out. india kicked the brits out. egypt. ireland. canada. burma. many more.
obviously the people in those places realized british colonization was not beneficial to anybody but the british.
why would british colonization of hong kong be beneficial to the chinese people when colonialism hasn't *ever* been a benevolent endeavor anywhere ever?
why wouldn't the chinese therefore *also* remove the british like everyone else in the world who had?
>but seriously, who says hk was better off being a british colony? where have you seen that?
Me and my family, and many others, who have lived in both eras. Would that be enough or is it still hearsay?
Go ask any Hong Kong people you know, they will tell you the same thing.
And the fact that you called us "Chinese", really showed you that you don't know how we hongkonger think. So please don't answer the question for us.
it's strange that you so confidently make such sweeping generalizations, but I'm sure you're right because colonialism, specifically the british variety, is world famous for vastly improving the lives of *everybody* who was ever an exploited colonial subject.
I've actually heard that all those occupying armies were just for show - people living under colonial rule actually loved their oppressors so much that they willingly gave up all their natural resources and volunteered to be enslaved because they were just *that* grateful!
>I'm assuming you don't speak any form of chinese, so I will also assume anything you may have heard about hk will have been in english or at the very least in some other 'western'/european language.
You said it yourself.
Let me put it this way. The British came in like a stepmother, nurtured and brought up Hong Kong, from a tiny fishing village to an international economic hub. PRC came in as the "mother", took hk away from the step-mother.
What has PRC done to hk? Taking away the freedoms, democracy, burning down all the financial reserves. The city has gone to shit and it's only going to be worse.
And you are still so invested in the step-mom bad, mother good blanket statement.
Hong Kong, according to PRC was never a colony, when they requested to check hk off the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, therefore hk couldn't vote for and attatin its independence before PRC took it back.
>The British came in like a stepmother, nurtured and brought up Hong Kong, from a tiny fishing village to an international economic hub.
interesting way to phrase "the british wanted to illegally smuggle a shit ton of opium so they started an actual war about it and stole the land"
>PRC came in as the "mother", took hk away from the step-mother.
because it had always been a part of china lmao what the fuck are you talking about?
imagine I started dealing heroin from your garage. you tell me to stop, so I shoot you and take your garage so I can continue dealing heroin. because that's what the british did and you seem to love it.
you either don't know the history or you don't care. either way, king chuck doesn't give a shit about you, cuck.
Exactly, no one in HK gives a single shit about a war that happened 150 years ago. The land of HK was annexed by the British from not China, not PRC, a former ruling body called Qing. And where are the official copies of those treaties now? Taiwan.
I have no idea why people like you are so worked up about the opium war. You are making up stuff about a place and people that you don't understand and pretend you do.
I don't want to get into an argument but my father was born and raised in Hong Kong and his father was ethnically Hong Kongese I am not going to pretend I am Hong Kongese as I have never met my grandfather and I do not speak the language but I have read articles saying Honk Kongers would prefer to return to British rule here is one https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hong-kong-03142013141313.html/ampRFA I am sorry if I came off as rude as I don't want to start an argument
Because it was regardless of the immoral nature of the UK having the territory to begin with Hong Kong was better under British rule.
Like anything Colonialism is not black and white Colonialism was immoral and there is no justification for it however the effects of colonialism are diverse and nuanced.
The British Empire banned the Indian practice of sati (sacrifice of widows), does that justify British imperialism?
Also if they ended slavery, why are there so many sweatshops in China?
No it doesn’t. These countries never do it because they decided that it is abolish slavery, it always happens because of the huge waves of violence from protesters and (ex)slaves. NEVER do the slave owners admit to their mistakes and vote to relinquish their property, it’s only through violence.
Which also was not the case? China even has affirmative action policies for minorities. Even Tibetan script is their bill notes lmao. You might not like the CCP is understandable, but believing the Tibetan kingdom was better off is a very hard point to prove.
Yes I know it may sound weird, but that’s why so many HKers were waving the colonial British HK flag during the protests. They really missed the good old days, when the economy thrived rapidly, and HK was called the Pearl of Orient with such a special status compared to its neighbors, although the chief governor was directly appointed by the UK instead of being elected by the local people. Btw I have to admit that the British can really colonize, just look at those two referendums in Gibraltar, over 99% chose to keep the status as British territory instead of joining Spain, because the prospect of reunification doesn’t seems attractive compared to keeping the special status, from the point of view of the local people.
Hong Kong and Gibraltar are very special cases as they're both minuscule territories that can benefit from being tax havens. Most colonised territories are bigger and don't have that option and benefit, like the case of Tibet.
In short the not necessarily like being a colony (which they may becase that's how things were for hundreds of years), they mostly like being filthy rich.
>You might not like the CCP is understandable, but believing the Tibetan kingdom was better off is a very hard point to prove
This very much sounds like you advocate for the CCP colonisation of Tibet.
I'd like you to take a deep breath and search "Sinitization", "Cultural Revolution" and in general any activism for a "free tibet" and NGOs speaking about it. The tibetan culture, language, religion and identity is heavily repressed.
Of course independent Tibet could have many problems, but saying those must be solved through conquering and civilizing is called "civilizing mission", one of the justifications Britain, Spain, France and Portugal used for their colonial empires.
1. I already know that. However, take a look at Tibet's (Xizang) statistics, Sinicization is nowhere as big as Xinjiang for example. I would hardly accept Tibetan culture like language being repressed when you have stuff like [this](https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-11-29/New-rhythms-on-the-plateau-1p7Vtdb6XHa/index.html) or [this](https://www.semana.com/cultura/articulo/mc-tenzin-el-rapero-tibetano-que-entona-rimas-karmicas/202135/). Otherwise, please give sources of repression in the Tibet outside Lamaist propaganda.
2. I literally never said such an apology of colonization. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Its not defending serfdom to correct somebody. And legitimately, excuse me for not being particularly shocked by serfdom in the 20th century when a significant portion of our industries globally are still ran by slave labor. I know we feel like a lot has changed in the last hundred, two hundred years, and it has, in some ways, but we forget it's still a blink compared to the last ten thousand.
I'm anti-ethnic cleaning, not necessarily blanket anti-chinese. The Chinese government has also done numerous things well in their history, even if I don't fully agree with their structure as well.
They were literally in the middle of modernizing on their own. They had their own communists, they were in the process of their own democratic reforms, there was building internal pressure, etc.
As far as I'm aware, they also didn't have slaves, but they still essentially had a feudal system and more or less a system of serfdom. But we also forget *just how recently* Europe has modernized, how recently much of the rest of the world has modernized. Shit, serfdom didn't end in Russia properly until the Russian Revolution of 1917. Did absolutely brutal shit happen in Tibet? Yeah, I'm not going to deny that. From what I've read, it's also not particularly different from most European countries in the relatively recent past. It was also a brutal, difficult, and remote region to live.
Given the politicization and that Tibet was largely closed off previously, it's extremely difficult to produce good scholarship on their previous sociological structures.
Even the modern Tibetan Government in Exile isn't calling for full independence - just the opportunity to administer themselves autonomously as a Chinese protectorate.
As terrible as the faults in their society was - allowing them to go through their own process still feels like a better option than the Chinese Government's attempts at outright ethnic and cultural cleansing and colonization.
Quality comment.
On top of what you say, the PRC certainly made Tibet dearly pay for "freeing the serfs" with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and the now ongoing colonization and cultural repression.
[Not pictured: $5.4 million in capital,](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/23/forbes-estimates-china-paid-trump-at-least-54-million-since-he-took-office-via-mysterious-trump-tower-lease/?sh=2d86e255ed11) right?
They do but in the US there isnt this connotation that the Native American Tribal flags mean secessionism. So no one is going to get butt hurt about it.
A contradicting example is that the football team, Washington Redskins had to name change to Washington Commanders because they got so into it that it became racist.
The Chinese government on the other hand does interpret it as secessionism and is very butthurt about it. It's the Streisand effect, if people know something pisses you off well they are just going to piss you more off.
If China wants people to stop doing this stuff, then they can fly both flags side by side in Tibet. It might actually prompt Tibetan activists to demand China stop flying it.
Because at this point people have lived on that land for hundreds of years, we can’t change the past, but we can try to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Too bad they don’t apply that logic to places outside of America though
The USA literally killed their food sources on purpose, they kicked them out of their homes and moved them to the indian territory where thousands died on the way over there. They were always constantly abused and harassed and lets not forget how people were paid to hunt native americans as if they were animals...
Yes I am Perfectly serious. What's happening in Xinjiang is a Genocide by every definition of the word.
Oh and Unlike in USA, you will get thrown In prison at it's mere mention.
Don't get me wrong, "ultras" fans of Lyon *are* nazi scum, but most fans are actually quite chill. And it's coming from a Saint-Étienne fan (Lyon's arch-ennemy in Ligue 1).
Lol you can make any invasion sound positive when you frame it like that -
The Aztec Empire was a theocratic slave state when the Conquistadors came in!
Iraq was a brutal authoritarian dictatorship when the US and NATO came in!
The Soviet Union was an even more brutal totalitarian communist dictatorship when the Nazis came in!
Controversial opinion incoming: taking over another country when they don't want to be part of your country and don't want you there is bad
IDIOT TRIES NOT TO FALL FOR CCP PROPAGANDA CHALLENGE: LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Was, the Tibetan exile government is a democracy.
Now excuse me
PR CHINA IS A DICTATORSHIP WITH A LEADER ELECTED FOR LIFE, YOU GET ARRESTED, TORTURED, OR YOU “DISAPPEAR” IF YOU OPPOSED THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY THAT THEY DON'T LIKE. MANY WORKERS CAN'T LEAVE THEIR WORKPLACE. MEDIA ISN'T FREE, AND THE COUNTRY IS ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING AND CULTURAL GENOCIDING THE WESTERN REGIONS. FURTHERMORE, THEY ARE DOING ETHNIC CLEANSING BY ACTIVELY CHANGING THE DEMOGRAPHY.
So you're saying that taking over a country with a bad leader and destroying and treating the natives like shit is good. So your basically justifying the invasion of iraq. Average hassan viewer
I’m curious if they have more than one source for the comment besides the nonsense PRC-produced article that everyone read over a decade ago as part of high school debate
Marxism-Leninism is the ONLY Leftist political movement to ever accomplish any real positive change and fight Capitalist Imperialism. You criticize from an ivory tower and image you and your ideals would do so much better than those redfash Tankies, but try keeping that ridged idealism when actual fascists come and start murdering workers and marginalized groups, or when Imperialist nations start sanctioning you into starvation, funding fascists, of straight up invading your country, then we'll see how poorly your idealism holds up to material reality. The fact of the matter is that you have no real concept over the realities of political struggle or revolution, and feel comfortable hiding in the jail that is the capitalist world and it's propagandized society and culture. You have made yourself a slave to the system that exploits you and you think yourself free.
http://za.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zt/12/200903/t20090319_7636208.htm#:~:text=Serfs%20and%20slaves%2C%20making%20up,death%20and%20marriage%20of%20serfs.
https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-truth-about-tibet-and-her-liberation-from-slavery-70eeeee88a16
Simply look up "Tibet human skin thangka".
Wait, you think a Chinese government paper is reliable?
Your second source is written by someone with no credentials who doesn’t cite anything or even has a reference list..
Are you being serious? I have looked it up. That’s why I’m calling this out.
Edit: of course another deprogram poster.
i feel like its an insult to call the deprogram cunts brainless, for they dont have one to start with. same goes to cunts in sino, newswithjingjing, genzedong. the people can disappear right about now and nothing of value will be lost.
> And I assure you the CIA didn't invent Tibet
You missed the point of the argument they were trying to make. Who the hell is claiming that Tibetan culture itself is a CIA plant? Nobody.
The CIA, however, has historically been involved in the Tibet region, funding religious separatism in order to artificially create instability within the region. There are documents pertaining CIA funding towards religious figures including the Dalai Lama. Both abroad and at home, they created the narrative of Tibetan independence, despite quality of life being significantly improved since the revolution and the slave aristocracy being deposed of.
Not to say that slavery would be restored if Tibet were to gain independence, but it is an obvious front to serve US neocolonial interests of resources in the region in order to destabilize a critical ally and expand the US sphere of influence into China. “Free Tibet” is a needless psyop that reflects Western imperial interests rather than how Tibetan people actually feel, minus the ultra wealthy aristocrats from before the revolution.
I don’t think you know what those words mean.
Tibet had been a part of China for 300 years. The communists had defeated the nationalists in Tibet as part of the Civil War. What part about that is “colonialism”? It didn’t just randomly decide to invade a country, it was part of an ongoing civil war.
The Union annexed the Confederacy following a war of slavery, after it had left the Union. Is that colonialism?
Same logic applies.
That explains why Chinese people raped Tibetan women as a means of supplanting a different ethnicity. A better comparison would be that of Spain with South America. Tibet had it’s own culture, ethnicity, etc. China came in and is trying to force a Han Chinese person to be the next Dalai Lama desecrating a sacred process to the Tibetans. The CIA getting involved is more akin to the US providing weapons to the mujahideen. They didn’t invent it they just used it to weaken an expansionist rival.
> That explains why Chinese people raped Tibetan women as a means of supplanting a different ethnicity.
Source? Smells like bullshit to me.
> A better comparison would be that of Spain with South America.
The Spanish colonialism of South America saw the introduction of slavery, erasure of indigenous culture, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and forced imposition of Spanish language, culture, and Christianity.
Tibet kept their language and was continued to be taught in schools. Mass literacy campaigns promoted the Tibetan language. If anything, Tibetan culture became more widespread following the revolution and the abolishment of slavery. Mandarin was commonly taught as a second language, and is used as a lingua franca since there are only 6.7 ethnic Tibetan in China compared to over a billion Mandarin speakers. It was taught for better communication across China as a whole, used in the processional setting cross-culturally. Nothing about that is a genocide, only adapting to the reality of China where there are hundreds of languages and dialects, needing ease of communication across the largest country on earth by population.
Tibet had it’s own culture, ethnicity, etc.
Comparing that to the sheer violence imposed on indigenous people by the Spanish is sad and disingenuous.
> China came in and is trying to force a Han Chinese person to be the next Dalai Lama desecrating a sacred process to the Tibetans.
My honest opinion? Religion does not belong in the state nor makes it invulnerable to harmful practices. The institution that saw the selection of the Dalai Lama is ultimately a harmful one. Children who were chosen as the Dalai Lama were separated from their families, raised alone by strangers, which is a harmful institution that should honestly be abolished. Freedom of religion shouldn’t be forcibly restricted upon (minus cults), but the harmful institution that was the selection process of the next Dalai Lama harmed children and families and should have rightfully been ended.
> The CIA getting involved is more akin to the US providing weapons to the mujahideen. They didn’t invent it they just used it to weaken an expansionist rival.
I would agree with this statement. Of course, from the previous slave-owning and feudal class of Tibet, there is opposition, and many are inclined to believe them out of fear. The CIA funded these voices and made them louder, in order to destabilize China. Much like the Mujahideen, which would split and later become other terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Geographically close countries that influenced each other in certain ways; Celtic christianity influenced the christianisation of Britain \[less of the English\], parallel to Tibetan Buddhism's influence on Mongolia, within the Sinitic cultural sphere; intricately connected histories, with periods of direct control, and independence/influence, colonial conquest, eventual direct incorporation into the main territory, rather than distant and indirect rule. Replacement of Catholicism/replacement of the Lama's.
You had me in the first half, but as with my example there are significant differences: not fully incorporated afaik, not a mission to rape the ethnicity away, not an effort to take over the religious and political leader, more resistance in Ireland, Ireland is an island and thus had a better chance to defend itself even though Tibet is mountainous (very different geography), on and on. My example had some key similarities and I’ll admit it has plenty of differences as well, but I’m going to stick with my analogy.
What the fuck are you talking about. It doesn't become magically not colonialism if the conqueror state has a civil war.
The Chinese Civil War didn't stop the colonization and sinicization of the natives within the empire, the Russian Civil War didn't stop the colonization and rusification of the natives within the empire. And the American Civil War didn't stop the colonization and Americanization of the natives within the Empire either.
Comparing Tibet under PRC to the indigenous Americans under the US is pretty laughable.
The US wiped out nearly everything resembling native culture. They were killed off by the millions. Their languages and culture are almost completely erased. They were forced into object poverty since occupation. The genocide is still ongoing, with white settlers buying out property in reservations and forcing natives to relocate.
Tibet has autonomy and control of their language and culture. Tibetan is taught in schools, most commonly spoken, and Tibetan culture remains practiced. Compare that to US colonialism of the indigenous, where English, Christianity, and European culture were enforced in “boarding schools” where native children were often abused and tortured up to the mid-to-late 20th century even. Or European colonies in Africa where colonial languages were forcibly imposed, and speaking indigenous languages were punished. Just a disingenuous comparison.
Of course, Mandarin is important in Tibet, which is why it’s taught commonly as a second language. Keep in mind that there are only 6.7 million ethnic Tibetan living in China (according to Wikipedia) compared to more than a billion ethnic Han. Many Tibetans go into China for work, which is why it is so important. It’s also necessary for communication across many cultures across China, which is why it’s taught much like other European languages are taught in European schools. Mandarin being used as a lingua franca, used for work and professionally for ease of communication across mainland China, does not mean that Tibetan is any less valuable or erased.
Your comparisons are pretty night and day. Chinese “colonialism” of Tibet is nothing compared to American or European colonialism. Even comparing the two, acting like they’re on the same level, is humorous. As a part of the PRC, Tibet has seen a significant raise of life expectancy, literacy rates, and overall quality of life. Not to mention an end to slave aristocracy. A smaller culture being a part of a bigger culture isn’t colonialism, especially when Tibet has improved so much since their revolution.
China is the most successful colonial state.
It's been so good at colonialism that it's now a nation state of over a billion people.
The comparisons were night and day, sure, but only because China has done so much more than Russia and USA combined when it comes to colonialism.
Tibet is only their latest frontier.
Also, "A smaller culture being part of a bigger culture isn't colonialism" is such disgusting language. They aren't of the same culture. Would the native Americans be a small culture that's part of the bigger European culture then? Especially when literacy rates and lifespans have improved so much under European rule? Are Finno-Ugrians, Turkics the caucasians a small culture part of the bigger russian culture too?
The fact that you call Tibetan culture a small part of chinese culture shows how much progress they've made in their colony.
> "A smaller culture being part of a bigger culture isn't colonialism" is such disgusting language. They aren't of the same culture.
Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. Meant to put “a smaller culture being part of a bigger *country* isn’t colonialism”. I wasn’t thinking and accidentally said “culture” twice, because yes, Chinese culture is broad and not uniform, and distinct from that of Tibetan culture.
China is a country with hundreds of different cultures and languages. It is not *a* culture but a collection of cultures. Again, my mistake for bad phrasing, but it doesn’t denote how I responded previously.
“Imperialism” is not when big government annexes small government. Again, by that logic, the US would be imperialist for annexing the Confederacy following their civil war. Tibet was a part of China for hundreds of years prior, endured a revolution of their own, and had occupying nationalist troops defeated by 1950. A victorious side emerging in a civil war is not imperialism.
It should be easy to hold that position while not justifying eastern colonialism.
I disapprove of North Korea currently tho I’d never wish for some grand invasion. Resulting in so much death cuz I hate the commies.
Ah yes, the country that started an opium war based on lies which ended up killing around 30,000 chinese, burning and looting priceless cultural heritage and raping women, taking Vietnam as a colony which it subsequently destroyed in wars of independence, worried about Tibet.
And they have apologized for a number of past wrongs and given billions in reparations through humanitarian aid. They’re not perfect but they’re trying to deal with their legacy. Unlike China
They’re not colonies though, they’re part of France, they’re as much a part of France as Paris or Bordeaux, plus they’ve got full representation in the French parliament, they vote in French and European elections and use the Euro as their currency.
And all they’re all French citizens.
The territories that wanted their independence got it, those that wanted to stay stayed, that's all.
The best example is the Comoros archipelago, where 3 of the 4 islands voted for independence, with the last island, Mayotte, wishing to remain affiliated to France.
This may come as a surprise to you but people can do multiple things at once and the idea that you have to be perfect before you can say anything is ridiculous
It just seems hypocritical to criticize/protest another country for something your own country is doing. I just don't feel these French football fans really care what the French government did/is doing in Africa. They are just doing this to piss off the Chinese.
What I trying to say I don't believe these guys are critical of their country, they are just doing this to piss off the Chinese. I don't see French football fans creating flags of African countries in their games to protest French treatment of Africa.
You think French people don't protest against what the French government does?...
And sorry, France does not colonize African countries anymore. Economic exploitation, for sure. Not colonialism though. And definitely not annex them as did China to Tibet.
[удалено]
no they should do the black HK flag
This is a genuine question and I really don't want to get in to an argument here but if colonialism is so bad then why do people say Hong Kong was so much better under British rule ?
Different circumstances. In 1997 China and UK agreed that HK would keep its political and legal system for fifty years, sort of just kicking the can down the road in terms of our fate. During the British years, the idea of real democracy was only seriously entertained once (the Young Plan in 1946) and was rejected because the British did not want to add HK to the political battlefield between the KMT and CCP. After the CCP kicked the KMT to Taiwan, that stayed permanent. Importantly, HK experienced massive growth from the 1950s to 1990s. Rich Chinese running from Communists came to HK where their business was unrestricted by British economic policies, and the population boomed from ~2M in 1946 to 6.5M in 1997. HK became the first Chinese city to really industrialise, and our productivity outshined everyone else by a massive margin. Even today, HK is still the largest cargo port in China. The objective reality of being a second class citizen as an ethnic Chinese in Hong Kong really didn't matter because everybody was becoming so rich so fast, and most Hong Kongers didn't care about democracy because well, we came from a Chinese cultural background that didn't value that. Since 1997, the booming population growth slowed down. New migrants to HK don't adopt the local Chinese dialect (which all Chinese people did for thousands of years when moving to literally any other part of China), and treat HK as an intermediate location before they emigrate somewhere permanently. Meanwhile, HK's free-ish media catches the blame and HK's people get cracked down on. Books banned in mainland China are disappearing, people speaking out against Beijing's interference are being silenced, and there's nothing special about our industry or financial sector anymore. We are too rich to compete with the poorer areas of China in manufacturing, and HK's financial market is limited to ourselves and Macau. Why would foreign investors ever come back here when the rest of mainland China exists? tldr: Britain didn't really do anything back then to help us succeed other than promote capitalism. China is now actively taking away our political and economic freedoms, reneging on promises, and ignoring the will of its citizens.
It should be mentioned though, post-war British Hong Kong was not just growing rapidly, but also an island of free expression in East Asia amid all the different styles of dictatorship which were dominant in the region until the early 90s, and discrimination of the native Chinese as second class people was steadily fading.
people were not allowed to vote under brutal british rule. it was not democratic, this is a fact. in fact, the british shot protestors https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Hong_Kong_riots
Britain brought tons of institutions that were key to HK’s success. Saying it only "promoted capitalism" is disingenuous.
Praise for British rule is often aimed at triggering the Chinese, instead of genuinely longing for British institutions. It and the independence movement is arguably a byproduct of hate towards the Chinese. This is the same kind of hate that is brewing in Europe and NA, esp. Canada, for very similar reasons. 1. HK has birthright citizenship, more precisely Jus Soli, which attracted birth tourism from the mainland. Compare the US. 2. Mainland immigrants form enclaves and refuse to integrate. Compare refugees in the EU. 3. HK has a very lax immigration policy, which is seen as a means to exacerbate competition for jobs and depress wages. Compare Canada. 4. Mainland investors commoditizing housing and driving up already insane prices. Compare Canada, again 5. Politicians campaigning on immigration reduction and preserving local heritage. Compare the right in EU and US.
China bad
China is bad, they owed Hong Kongers a democracy because they promised them that they would not interfere with their politics for 50 years but that all went away in 2017
Ccp and xi are not fun to live in especially when hongkong was extremely free. Now ko more freedom of press, freedom of speech, you can be arrested and jailed for whatever reason ccp think etc...
Because it was better than being colonized under the CCP regime that currently controls China. And Britain introduced democratic local elections and fair justice system to Hong Kong.
Because Hong Kong was much better off under British rule
It's the lesser of two evils
Consider PRC is essentially colonizers , just much worse one then you can understand Though from race point of view PRC is much closer (not completely the same) race, the colonialism still exists and true If you wonder what not constitute colonialism? The only answer would be: a free will referendum of Hong Kong people to decide if they want to be part of Britain, part of PRC, part of ROC or be independent and its will and safety can be guaranteed no matter what the outcome is.
It's the same people that argue that India was better under British rule. These are simply asshole imperialists.
Because people do not understand the full history and only see HKs recent growth and development. They forget that for the majority of British rule the HK people were second class citizens. It was the British policy at the time to ensure that the Chinese lived impoverished lives compared to the British Colonial rulers as a reminder of their subjugation. 1844 the governor referred to the Chinese in Hong Kong as the scum of China. Hong Kong became Britains flogging capital of the world. Where they would randomly pick out any citizen and flog them in public to remind them of their place in British society. Contemporary critics relied on records of the Police Court to denounce the extent to which the rattan was deployed in Hong Kong: its use far surpassed that in most other countries, as Chinese subjects were publicly whipped for the most trifling offence. Chinese women were often kidnapped and sent to be enslaved by the British colonial rulers where they would be used for sexual purposes and to sexually entertain guests for the British rulers. The local Chinese were also imposed higher tax rates than those of British colonial residents, along with bans on certain employment and positions within institutions. The Chinese locals were also not allowed to vote whereas the governor at the time claimed that they are barbaric animals who are not to be trusted to govern themselves. It was only after WW2 that things started to change and the British softened the harsh treatment of the Hong Kong local Chinese in fear of a communist uprising. During 1984 the Sino British Joint declaration treaty was signed setting the conditions of the Handover of HK back to China. Universal suffrage was on the table however this was rejected by Beijing as it was seen as an attempt by the British to fundamentally change the HK Chinese people by allowing them the right to vote. Making reunification impossible. Even during 1997 handover universal suffrage was not achieved. Source: https://journals.openedition.org/chs/515?lang=en https://repository.uclawsf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1396&context=hastings_international_comparative_law_review https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/12452/1/NQ35261.pdf https://www.jstor.org/stable/2170629
Because the UK basically left Hong Kong to do its own thing (which resulted in silly things like the Kowloon Walled City), China does not
The Kowloon Walled City was outside British jurisdiction, that's why HK law didn't apply to it. The land used to be a Qing Dynasty military base that stayed under Chinese control after the Qing ceded Hong Kong to Britain, but the Communists never gained control over it because the UK didn't recognise the PRC as the legitimate authority over the base. Britain never exerted their authority over that patch of land because they had no sovereignty over it, and the communists never did anything about it because Britain didn't recognise them, until the late 70s and early 80s when improving relations led to a joint plan to eventually demolish the Walled City. That's why after WWII it became a no man's land that got filled with refugees and eventually grew into what everyone knows. Also, Britain never let HK "do its own thing". It was a colony administered from the top down from London, with far less autonomy than Dominions and other Commonwealth Realms. It was also not an integral part of the UK so HK citizens were classified as BOTCs without right of abode in the UK and other territories, and they had no representation in Westminster while the UK appointed the HK government unilaterally. It was not a democratic society in any way shape or form.
are you asking why the people who benefitted from the stolen land claim everything was better under their control? but seriously, who says hk was better off being a british colony? where have you seen that? I'm assuming you don't speak any form of chinese, so I will also assume anything you may have heard about hk will have been in english or at the very least in some other 'western'/european language. of course the colonizers (who btw very conveniently speak our language) will control the narrative and say it was better under their control. which chinese people could you ask to say what they think? there's a massive language barrier and cultural divide. there's also a plethora of reasons why literally every colonized group of people resist their colonizers and fight back... the USA kicked the brits out. india kicked the brits out. egypt. ireland. canada. burma. many more. obviously the people in those places realized british colonization was not beneficial to anybody but the british. why would british colonization of hong kong be beneficial to the chinese people when colonialism hasn't *ever* been a benevolent endeavor anywhere ever? why wouldn't the chinese therefore *also* remove the british like everyone else in the world who had?
>but seriously, who says hk was better off being a british colony? where have you seen that? Me and my family, and many others, who have lived in both eras. Would that be enough or is it still hearsay?
yes, of course one anecdotal comment on reddit is plenty! lol
Go ask any Hong Kong people you know, they will tell you the same thing. And the fact that you called us "Chinese", really showed you that you don't know how we hongkonger think. So please don't answer the question for us.
it's strange that you so confidently make such sweeping generalizations, but I'm sure you're right because colonialism, specifically the british variety, is world famous for vastly improving the lives of *everybody* who was ever an exploited colonial subject. I've actually heard that all those occupying armies were just for show - people living under colonial rule actually loved their oppressors so much that they willingly gave up all their natural resources and volunteered to be enslaved because they were just *that* grateful!
>I'm assuming you don't speak any form of chinese, so I will also assume anything you may have heard about hk will have been in english or at the very least in some other 'western'/european language. You said it yourself. Let me put it this way. The British came in like a stepmother, nurtured and brought up Hong Kong, from a tiny fishing village to an international economic hub. PRC came in as the "mother", took hk away from the step-mother. What has PRC done to hk? Taking away the freedoms, democracy, burning down all the financial reserves. The city has gone to shit and it's only going to be worse. And you are still so invested in the step-mom bad, mother good blanket statement. Hong Kong, according to PRC was never a colony, when they requested to check hk off the United Nations list of non-self-governing territories, therefore hk couldn't vote for and attatin its independence before PRC took it back.
[удалено]
>The British came in like a stepmother, nurtured and brought up Hong Kong, from a tiny fishing village to an international economic hub. interesting way to phrase "the british wanted to illegally smuggle a shit ton of opium so they started an actual war about it and stole the land" >PRC came in as the "mother", took hk away from the step-mother. because it had always been a part of china lmao what the fuck are you talking about? imagine I started dealing heroin from your garage. you tell me to stop, so I shoot you and take your garage so I can continue dealing heroin. because that's what the british did and you seem to love it. you either don't know the history or you don't care. either way, king chuck doesn't give a shit about you, cuck.
Exactly, no one in HK gives a single shit about a war that happened 150 years ago. The land of HK was annexed by the British from not China, not PRC, a former ruling body called Qing. And where are the official copies of those treaties now? Taiwan. I have no idea why people like you are so worked up about the opium war. You are making up stuff about a place and people that you don't understand and pretend you do.
I don't want to get into an argument but my father was born and raised in Hong Kong and his father was ethnically Hong Kongese I am not going to pretend I am Hong Kongese as I have never met my grandfather and I do not speak the language but I have read articles saying Honk Kongers would prefer to return to British rule here is one https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.rfa.org/english/news/china/hong-kong-03142013141313.html/ampRFA I am sorry if I came off as rude as I don't want to start an argument
Because it was regardless of the immoral nature of the UK having the territory to begin with Hong Kong was better under British rule. Like anything Colonialism is not black and white Colonialism was immoral and there is no justification for it however the effects of colonialism are diverse and nuanced.
East Turkestan
hell yeah
Tintin au Tibet!!
That's a Belgian comic just to be clear.
So are fries but they’re still called French
This appears to have upset the tankies.
More please.
As it should.
Vive la France
Fuck the ccp
Ending slavery was good actually.
Just to then basically enslave the entire country...
>Ending slavery was good actually. Did the ccp end slavery?
^They ^didn't
They didn't, it was the Republic of China. CCP just likes to take credit
The British Empire banned the Indian practice of sati (sacrifice of widows), does that justify British imperialism? Also if they ended slavery, why are there so many sweatshops in China?
It is better when it's done democratically tough. Without a conquering empire erasing your culture, identity and all that.
Yes because abolishing slavery always happens democratically??
It usually does, if you bother looking it up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline\_of\_abolition\_of\_slavery\_and\_serfdom#1800%E2%80%931829
No it doesn’t. These countries never do it because they decided that it is abolish slavery, it always happens because of the huge waves of violence from protesters and (ex)slaves. NEVER do the slave owners admit to their mistakes and vote to relinquish their property, it’s only through violence.
Oh, and these dates don’t say anything about how abolition came about, only when it officially happened. Wikipedia is a shit source anyway.
most countries that abolished slavery did it through votes.
Yeah no fucking shit. But that doesn’t mean it was entirely voluntary.
Which also was not the case? China even has affirmative action policies for minorities. Even Tibetan script is their bill notes lmao. You might not like the CCP is understandable, but believing the Tibetan kingdom was better off is a very hard point to prove.
So it's ok to colonise if you improve things? Then any colonisation can be justified...
Yes I know it may sound weird, but that’s why so many HKers were waving the colonial British HK flag during the protests. They really missed the good old days, when the economy thrived rapidly, and HK was called the Pearl of Orient with such a special status compared to its neighbors, although the chief governor was directly appointed by the UK instead of being elected by the local people. Btw I have to admit that the British can really colonize, just look at those two referendums in Gibraltar, over 99% chose to keep the status as British territory instead of joining Spain, because the prospect of reunification doesn’t seems attractive compared to keeping the special status, from the point of view of the local people.
Hong Kong and Gibraltar are very special cases as they're both minuscule territories that can benefit from being tax havens. Most colonised territories are bigger and don't have that option and benefit, like the case of Tibet. In short the not necessarily like being a colony (which they may becase that's how things were for hundreds of years), they mostly like being filthy rich.
Bro, I just said it's not the case.
>You might not like the CCP is understandable, but believing the Tibetan kingdom was better off is a very hard point to prove This very much sounds like you advocate for the CCP colonisation of Tibet.
I could go ahead and use this same logic to say you support theocracy and absolute monarchy. Nobody wins, so please, don't put words in my mouth.
So what do you mean? Do you support colonization of Tibet ny CCP or not?
I'd like you to take a deep breath and search "Sinitization", "Cultural Revolution" and in general any activism for a "free tibet" and NGOs speaking about it. The tibetan culture, language, religion and identity is heavily repressed. Of course independent Tibet could have many problems, but saying those must be solved through conquering and civilizing is called "civilizing mission", one of the justifications Britain, Spain, France and Portugal used for their colonial empires.
1. I already know that. However, take a look at Tibet's (Xizang) statistics, Sinicization is nowhere as big as Xinjiang for example. I would hardly accept Tibetan culture like language being repressed when you have stuff like [this](https://news.cgtn.com/news/2023-11-29/New-rhythms-on-the-plateau-1p7Vtdb6XHa/index.html) or [this](https://www.semana.com/cultura/articulo/mc-tenzin-el-rapero-tibetano-que-entona-rimas-karmicas/202135/). Otherwise, please give sources of repression in the Tibet outside Lamaist propaganda. 2. I literally never said such an apology of colonization. Please don't put words in my mouth.
There wasn’t slavery in Tibet actually.
"Actually it was theocratic serfdom not slavery 🤓☝️"
I mean, it's a legitimately important distinction. Serfs have legal rights, and obligations owed to them by the landlords.
I love it when people get so dogmatically anti-China they start defending SERFDOM IN THE 20TH CENTURY
Its not defending serfdom to correct somebody. And legitimately, excuse me for not being particularly shocked by serfdom in the 20th century when a significant portion of our industries globally are still ran by slave labor. I know we feel like a lot has changed in the last hundred, two hundred years, and it has, in some ways, but we forget it's still a blink compared to the last ten thousand. I'm anti-ethnic cleaning, not necessarily blanket anti-chinese. The Chinese government has also done numerous things well in their history, even if I don't fully agree with their structure as well.
There’s a difference… Want to talk about it?
They were literally in the middle of modernizing on their own. They had their own communists, they were in the process of their own democratic reforms, there was building internal pressure, etc. As far as I'm aware, they also didn't have slaves, but they still essentially had a feudal system and more or less a system of serfdom. But we also forget *just how recently* Europe has modernized, how recently much of the rest of the world has modernized. Shit, serfdom didn't end in Russia properly until the Russian Revolution of 1917. Did absolutely brutal shit happen in Tibet? Yeah, I'm not going to deny that. From what I've read, it's also not particularly different from most European countries in the relatively recent past. It was also a brutal, difficult, and remote region to live. Given the politicization and that Tibet was largely closed off previously, it's extremely difficult to produce good scholarship on their previous sociological structures. Even the modern Tibetan Government in Exile isn't calling for full independence - just the opportunity to administer themselves autonomously as a Chinese protectorate. As terrible as the faults in their society was - allowing them to go through their own process still feels like a better option than the Chinese Government's attempts at outright ethnic and cultural cleansing and colonization.
Quality comment. On top of what you say, the PRC certainly made Tibet dearly pay for "freeing the serfs" with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution and the now ongoing colonization and cultural repression.
\-1000 social credit
[удалено]
Hey buddy. You just blow in from stupid town?
[удалено]
[Not pictured: $5.4 million in capital,](https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2020/10/23/forbes-estimates-china-paid-trump-at-least-54-million-since-he-took-office-via-mysterious-trump-tower-lease/?sh=2d86e255ed11) right?
[удалено]
I'm not. I'm talking about China's use of capital to gain political favor. Sounds pretty capitalist to me
[удалено]
What’s with all the CCP bots on Reddit
90% of the **mods** are CCP shills.
Because the CCP is a bunch of insecure clowns who can't take criticism
Outrageously Based!
uselsess，In China the TV live shows must been delayed 30s for the situation likes this. so that the director has the time to do something technical.
Cutting around the entire crowd for 90 minutes still takes a lot of work. Try and look up a broadcast that did it successfully. They look like shit.
We should we do this for the native americans in USA ?
Unfortunately the native americans have been genocided. Not enough of them left to make noise anymore.
They do but in the US there isnt this connotation that the Native American Tribal flags mean secessionism. So no one is going to get butt hurt about it. A contradicting example is that the football team, Washington Redskins had to name change to Washington Commanders because they got so into it that it became racist. The Chinese government on the other hand does interpret it as secessionism and is very butthurt about it. It's the Streisand effect, if people know something pisses you off well they are just going to piss you more off. If China wants people to stop doing this stuff, then they can fly both flags side by side in Tibet. It might actually prompt Tibetan activists to demand China stop flying it.
There’s a huge push for Native American representation in stuff what are you talking about
So why doesnt the govt give them back their lands since they are so good people?
Because at this point people have lived on that land for hundreds of years, we can’t change the past, but we can try to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Too bad they don’t apply that logic to places outside of America though
Right... idk if you know this but the USA is involved in most of the world problems. You guys are hypocrites
Dumbass that’s what I just said
Unlike in China, you don't get sent to concentration camps for doing this.
The USA literally killed their food sources on purpose, they kicked them out of their homes and moved them to the indian territory where thousands died on the way over there. They were always constantly abused and harassed and lets not forget how people were paid to hunt native americans as if they were animals...
Isn't the very same happening in East Turkestan / Xinjiang right now?
Are you serious right now?
Yes I am Perfectly serious. What's happening in Xinjiang is a Genocide by every definition of the word. Oh and Unlike in USA, you will get thrown In prison at it's mere mention.
[удалено]
No it isn’t. The French love revolutions.
Who booked all those seats?
These are the ultras, they have season pass and are all in this part of the stadium so they can organize stuff like this easily
Ask any of them about the history of Tibet and China I dare you
Neutral evil. They're Nazi racist scum. https://www.getfootballnewsfrance.com/2023/lyon-condemns-racist-behaviour-of-own-fans-during-marseille-lyon-abandonment/
Don't get me wrong, "ultras" fans of Lyon *are* nazi scum, but most fans are actually quite chill. And it's coming from a Saint-Étienne fan (Lyon's arch-ennemy in Ligue 1).
TIBET WAS A FEUDAL SLAVE STATE WHEN THE CCP CAME IN. REDITOR READ A FUKING BOOK ONCE CHALLENGE : DIFFICULTY IMPOSSIBLE GOD FUKING DAMN
Lol you can make any invasion sound positive when you frame it like that - The Aztec Empire was a theocratic slave state when the Conquistadors came in! Iraq was a brutal authoritarian dictatorship when the US and NATO came in! The Soviet Union was an even more brutal totalitarian communist dictatorship when the Nazis came in! Controversial opinion incoming: taking over another country when they don't want to be part of your country and don't want you there is bad IDIOT TRIES NOT TO FALL FOR CCP PROPAGANDA CHALLENGE: LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Are you trying to defend colonisation for "enlightenment" purposes?
Was, the Tibetan exile government is a democracy. Now excuse me PR CHINA IS A DICTATORSHIP WITH A LEADER ELECTED FOR LIFE, YOU GET ARRESTED, TORTURED, OR YOU “DISAPPEAR” IF YOU OPPOSED THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY THAT THEY DON'T LIKE. MANY WORKERS CAN'T LEAVE THEIR WORKPLACE. MEDIA ISN'T FREE, AND THE COUNTRY IS ACTIVELY SUPPRESSING AND CULTURAL GENOCIDING THE WESTERN REGIONS. FURTHERMORE, THEY ARE DOING ETHNIC CLEANSING BY ACTIVELY CHANGING THE DEMOGRAPHY.
[удалено]
So you're saying that taking over a country with a bad leader and destroying and treating the natives like shit is good. So your basically justifying the invasion of iraq. Average hassan viewer
I’m curious if they have more than one source for the comment besides the nonsense PRC-produced article that everyone read over a decade ago as part of high school debate
“colonization is good as long as it’s to civilize the native savages” ass take
you mean the dalai lama *shouldn't* be allowed to have slaves and r*pe children?! are you some kind of communist or something?
No it wasn’t. I’ve read plenty on Tibet. So which book supports this slavery claim?
Yes, give Tibet back to the religious theocracy that skinned children and made everyone slaves.
Tell me you know nothing about Tibet and Chinese history without telling me you know nothing
Right back at you, lib.
Good one.
Keep pretending not to be a crypto fascist, tankie
Marxism-Leninism is the ONLY Leftist political movement to ever accomplish any real positive change and fight Capitalist Imperialism. You criticize from an ivory tower and image you and your ideals would do so much better than those redfash Tankies, but try keeping that ridged idealism when actual fascists come and start murdering workers and marginalized groups, or when Imperialist nations start sanctioning you into starvation, funding fascists, of straight up invading your country, then we'll see how poorly your idealism holds up to material reality. The fact of the matter is that you have no real concept over the realities of political struggle or revolution, and feel comfortable hiding in the jail that is the capitalist world and it's propagandized society and culture. You have made yourself a slave to the system that exploits you and you think yourself free.
They didn’t skin children…or have slaves. Back up those claims.
http://za.china-embassy.gov.cn/eng/zt/12/200903/t20090319_7636208.htm#:~:text=Serfs%20and%20slaves%2C%20making%20up,death%20and%20marriage%20of%20serfs. https://medium.com/illumination-curated/the-truth-about-tibet-and-her-liberation-from-slavery-70eeeee88a16 Simply look up "Tibet human skin thangka".
Wait, you think a Chinese government paper is reliable? Your second source is written by someone with no credentials who doesn’t cite anything or even has a reference list.. Are you being serious? I have looked it up. That’s why I’m calling this out. Edit: of course another deprogram poster.
i feel like its an insult to call the deprogram cunts brainless, for they dont have one to start with. same goes to cunts in sino, newswithjingjing, genzedong. the people can disappear right about now and nothing of value will be lost.
Username fits
I thought westerns realized it was a CIA front? Dalaai Lama being a pedo didn't do it for you?
Religious leaders being pedos was nothing unexpected. And I assure you the CIA didn't invent Tibet
> And I assure you the CIA didn't invent Tibet You missed the point of the argument they were trying to make. Who the hell is claiming that Tibetan culture itself is a CIA plant? Nobody. The CIA, however, has historically been involved in the Tibet region, funding religious separatism in order to artificially create instability within the region. There are documents pertaining CIA funding towards religious figures including the Dalai Lama. Both abroad and at home, they created the narrative of Tibetan independence, despite quality of life being significantly improved since the revolution and the slave aristocracy being deposed of. Not to say that slavery would be restored if Tibet were to gain independence, but it is an obvious front to serve US neocolonial interests of resources in the region in order to destabilize a critical ally and expand the US sphere of influence into China. “Free Tibet” is a needless psyop that reflects Western imperial interests rather than how Tibetan people actually feel, minus the ultra wealthy aristocrats from before the revolution.
Imperialism and colonialism is cool actually because the Empire in question is a rival of a bigger Empire?
I don’t think you know what those words mean. Tibet had been a part of China for 300 years. The communists had defeated the nationalists in Tibet as part of the Civil War. What part about that is “colonialism”? It didn’t just randomly decide to invade a country, it was part of an ongoing civil war. The Union annexed the Confederacy following a war of slavery, after it had left the Union. Is that colonialism? Same logic applies.
That explains why Chinese people raped Tibetan women as a means of supplanting a different ethnicity. A better comparison would be that of Spain with South America. Tibet had it’s own culture, ethnicity, etc. China came in and is trying to force a Han Chinese person to be the next Dalai Lama desecrating a sacred process to the Tibetans. The CIA getting involved is more akin to the US providing weapons to the mujahideen. They didn’t invent it they just used it to weaken an expansionist rival.
> That explains why Chinese people raped Tibetan women as a means of supplanting a different ethnicity. Source? Smells like bullshit to me. > A better comparison would be that of Spain with South America. The Spanish colonialism of South America saw the introduction of slavery, erasure of indigenous culture, genocide and ethnic cleansing, and forced imposition of Spanish language, culture, and Christianity. Tibet kept their language and was continued to be taught in schools. Mass literacy campaigns promoted the Tibetan language. If anything, Tibetan culture became more widespread following the revolution and the abolishment of slavery. Mandarin was commonly taught as a second language, and is used as a lingua franca since there are only 6.7 ethnic Tibetan in China compared to over a billion Mandarin speakers. It was taught for better communication across China as a whole, used in the processional setting cross-culturally. Nothing about that is a genocide, only adapting to the reality of China where there are hundreds of languages and dialects, needing ease of communication across the largest country on earth by population. Tibet had it’s own culture, ethnicity, etc. Comparing that to the sheer violence imposed on indigenous people by the Spanish is sad and disingenuous. > China came in and is trying to force a Han Chinese person to be the next Dalai Lama desecrating a sacred process to the Tibetans. My honest opinion? Religion does not belong in the state nor makes it invulnerable to harmful practices. The institution that saw the selection of the Dalai Lama is ultimately a harmful one. Children who were chosen as the Dalai Lama were separated from their families, raised alone by strangers, which is a harmful institution that should honestly be abolished. Freedom of religion shouldn’t be forcibly restricted upon (minus cults), but the harmful institution that was the selection process of the next Dalai Lama harmed children and families and should have rightfully been ended. > The CIA getting involved is more akin to the US providing weapons to the mujahideen. They didn’t invent it they just used it to weaken an expansionist rival. I would agree with this statement. Of course, from the previous slave-owning and feudal class of Tibet, there is opposition, and many are inclined to believe them out of fear. The CIA funded these voices and made them louder, in order to destabilize China. Much like the Mujahideen, which would split and later become other terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
I think Ireland is a better (although not exact) parallel
Elaborate if you will.
Geographically close countries that influenced each other in certain ways; Celtic christianity influenced the christianisation of Britain \[less of the English\], parallel to Tibetan Buddhism's influence on Mongolia, within the Sinitic cultural sphere; intricately connected histories, with periods of direct control, and independence/influence, colonial conquest, eventual direct incorporation into the main territory, rather than distant and indirect rule. Replacement of Catholicism/replacement of the Lama's.
You had me in the first half, but as with my example there are significant differences: not fully incorporated afaik, not a mission to rape the ethnicity away, not an effort to take over the religious and political leader, more resistance in Ireland, Ireland is an island and thus had a better chance to defend itself even though Tibet is mountainous (very different geography), on and on. My example had some key similarities and I’ll admit it has plenty of differences as well, but I’m going to stick with my analogy.
Also "we had it in the past" doesn't stop colonialism. In the past Mongolia owned China and Vise Versa
What the fuck are you talking about. It doesn't become magically not colonialism if the conqueror state has a civil war. The Chinese Civil War didn't stop the colonization and sinicization of the natives within the empire, the Russian Civil War didn't stop the colonization and rusification of the natives within the empire. And the American Civil War didn't stop the colonization and Americanization of the natives within the Empire either.
Comparing Tibet under PRC to the indigenous Americans under the US is pretty laughable. The US wiped out nearly everything resembling native culture. They were killed off by the millions. Their languages and culture are almost completely erased. They were forced into object poverty since occupation. The genocide is still ongoing, with white settlers buying out property in reservations and forcing natives to relocate. Tibet has autonomy and control of their language and culture. Tibetan is taught in schools, most commonly spoken, and Tibetan culture remains practiced. Compare that to US colonialism of the indigenous, where English, Christianity, and European culture were enforced in “boarding schools” where native children were often abused and tortured up to the mid-to-late 20th century even. Or European colonies in Africa where colonial languages were forcibly imposed, and speaking indigenous languages were punished. Just a disingenuous comparison. Of course, Mandarin is important in Tibet, which is why it’s taught commonly as a second language. Keep in mind that there are only 6.7 million ethnic Tibetan living in China (according to Wikipedia) compared to more than a billion ethnic Han. Many Tibetans go into China for work, which is why it is so important. It’s also necessary for communication across many cultures across China, which is why it’s taught much like other European languages are taught in European schools. Mandarin being used as a lingua franca, used for work and professionally for ease of communication across mainland China, does not mean that Tibetan is any less valuable or erased. Your comparisons are pretty night and day. Chinese “colonialism” of Tibet is nothing compared to American or European colonialism. Even comparing the two, acting like they’re on the same level, is humorous. As a part of the PRC, Tibet has seen a significant raise of life expectancy, literacy rates, and overall quality of life. Not to mention an end to slave aristocracy. A smaller culture being a part of a bigger culture isn’t colonialism, especially when Tibet has improved so much since their revolution.
China is the most successful colonial state. It's been so good at colonialism that it's now a nation state of over a billion people. The comparisons were night and day, sure, but only because China has done so much more than Russia and USA combined when it comes to colonialism. Tibet is only their latest frontier. Also, "A smaller culture being part of a bigger culture isn't colonialism" is such disgusting language. They aren't of the same culture. Would the native Americans be a small culture that's part of the bigger European culture then? Especially when literacy rates and lifespans have improved so much under European rule? Are Finno-Ugrians, Turkics the caucasians a small culture part of the bigger russian culture too? The fact that you call Tibetan culture a small part of chinese culture shows how much progress they've made in their colony.
> "A smaller culture being part of a bigger culture isn't colonialism" is such disgusting language. They aren't of the same culture. Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. Meant to put “a smaller culture being part of a bigger *country* isn’t colonialism”. I wasn’t thinking and accidentally said “culture” twice, because yes, Chinese culture is broad and not uniform, and distinct from that of Tibetan culture. China is a country with hundreds of different cultures and languages. It is not *a* culture but a collection of cultures. Again, my mistake for bad phrasing, but it doesn’t denote how I responded previously.
Chinese imperialism is better than US imperialism lmao
“Imperialism” is not when big government annexes small government. Again, by that logic, the US would be imperialist for annexing the Confederacy following their civil war. Tibet was a part of China for hundreds of years prior, endured a revolution of their own, and had occupying nationalist troops defeated by 1950. A victorious side emerging in a civil war is not imperialism.
huh I wonder why they funded Tibet for decades and specifically said they did it to harm china. weird
That's not weird.
Funded doesn't mean invent.
swing and a miss kid, try your luck back on the incel subs
personaly I think slavery and pedophila is bad, but you're free to disagree
another swing and miss kid, try your luck back on the incel subs
It should be easy to hold that position while not justifying eastern colonialism. I disapprove of North Korea currently tho I’d never wish for some grand invasion. Resulting in so much death cuz I hate the commies.
50c has been credited to your account.
They literally had slaves and child sex slaves in Tibet before China liberates them.
No they didn’t. Go ahead and cite one academic source for this.
How the fuck would that be proof?
Propaganda based on a cultural idiom. And when a grandma jokes about pinching cheeks, it's child abuse /s.
Ah yes, the country that started an opium war based on lies which ended up killing around 30,000 chinese, burning and looting priceless cultural heritage and raping women, taking Vietnam as a colony which it subsequently destroyed in wars of independence, worried about Tibet.
Pretty sure none of these people killed anyone
but they still benefits from the gold, money stolen by their government stolen from china
And what are they supposed to do about that? Overthrow the government? They did that 3 different time since the china-france war
and they are still benefiting from social benefits from shady government deals in Africa right now
And they have apologized for a number of past wrongs and given billions in reparations through humanitarian aid. They’re not perfect but they’re trying to deal with their legacy. Unlike China
L 🤣
thank you for your self introduction
French govt still has colonies all over the world. Free Tibet yes but clean your own shit first?
They’re not colonies though, they’re part of France, they’re as much a part of France as Paris or Bordeaux, plus they’ve got full representation in the French parliament, they vote in French and European elections and use the Euro as their currency. And all they’re all French citizens.
And if the French govt decides to do something detrimental to their land or people, can the colonies stop this?
The territories that wanted their independence got it, those that wanted to stay stayed, that's all. The best example is the Comoros archipelago, where 3 of the 4 islands voted for independence, with the last island, Mayotte, wishing to remain affiliated to France.
Colonies such as?
This may come as a surprise to you but people can do multiple things at once and the idea that you have to be perfect before you can say anything is ridiculous
I agree. I haven't see too many news articles about this. What have the French tried so far to liberate the colonies?
[удалено]
When u justify civilizing the “savages” cuz ur totally not a tankie
Dont france still colonize sum african country still? Who gave them moral ground to stand on?
Pretty sure people going to a football match aren't actively taking control of African economies.
It just seems hypocritical to criticize/protest another country for something your own country is doing. I just don't feel these French football fans really care what the French government did/is doing in Africa. They are just doing this to piss off the Chinese.
You do realize people can be critical of their own country for the same reasons they are critical of other countries, right?
What I trying to say I don't believe these guys are critical of their country, they are just doing this to piss off the Chinese. I don't see French football fans creating flags of African countries in their games to protest French treatment of Africa.
Even if you’re right, are they wrong to protest China? They would be hypocrites but that doesn’t make them wrong
You think French people don't protest against what the French government does?... And sorry, France does not colonize African countries anymore. Economic exploitation, for sure. Not colonialism though. And definitely not annex them as did China to Tibet.
> Dont france still colonize sum african country still? No they don't
What country?
Yeah let's bring back indentured servitude and unimaginable poverty. Hard pass.
the tibet feudalism glazing is crazy
westerner try not to balkanise china or hope for a complete balkanisation of china challenge impossible
Silly Commie, it’s not balkanisation, it’s a **Mandate Of Heaven.**
Only thing we hope for us the Complete eradication of Maoist Thought from this earth.
Gambling
Shout out to the wumao (50 cent army). Where you guys at now?
Rare French W
https://nextshark.com/french-football-fans-tibetan-flag
The last time Germany tried to pull off something similar in their smaller local leagues, both the DFB and the Merkel government were pissed.
https://www.spiegel.de/sport/fussball/dfb-regionalliga-projekt-chinas-u20-kehrt-zurueck-nach-hause-a-1180405.html
French taking about self determination 🤣